Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Liverpool Exchange Company Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Cardiff Corporation Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL BANDS (COPYRIGHT MUSIC).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the result of the negotiations and the final terms agreed between the County Council Territorial Association and the Performing Right Society for the performance of copyright music played by any of the orchestras of the Territorial Force in their social activities?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw: I understand that the terms arranged between the Council of County Territorial Associations and the Performing Right Society were that an annual fee of £1 1s. should be paid for bands of Territorial Army units, and that, where Territorial Army drill halls are let by county associations or by
units for the purpose of functions at which there is music, a fee of 5 per cent of the gross amount received shall be paid, subject to an annual minimum of £3 3s.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend let us have the figures as given by the Association last year if I put down a question?

Mr. SHAW: I do not know, but I will make every effort to get the figures.

Mr. TINNE: On a point of Order. Seeing that this matter is under examination by a Select Committee, is it not highly improper that the House should be allowed to discuss it?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the matter is under discussion by a Select Committee, obviously it would be undesirable to raise it by questions in the House.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL AND SMALL ARMS FACTORY, ENFIELD.

Mr. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to make any change in the working conditions at the Enfield Royal Small Arms Factory; if so, what is the nature of the change and the date from which it will operate; and whether it is to be regarded as a permanent or temporary change?

Mr. SHAW: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a reply which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave on 1st April to the right hon. Member for Woolwich West (Sir K. Wood) and the hon. Member for Woolwich East (Mr. Snell).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 17.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what are the estimated savings which will be effected, respectively, by the institution by the Government of short time at Woolwich Arsenal and piece-work at the Enfield factory; whether the minimum wage is affected; and what will be the reduction in the earnings of the lower-paid workers?

Mr. SHAW: The reduction of expenditure at the two factories in consequence of the anticipated shortage of work during the current financial year cannot at this stage be stated with precision,
but it is calculated that it may amount to about £100,000 at Woolwich and £35,000 at Enfield. As regards the second part of the question, no variation of the present wage-rates for any class of labour is involved. As regards the third part, at Woolwich the normal loss in weekly earnings of a time-work labourer on the minimum factory rate will be 3s. 10d., representing the hours on Saturday morning for which work will not be available for him. The earnings of piece-workers who form the majority of operatives, depend upon effort and it is impossible to forecast accurately the precise effect of reduced hours upon such earnings. At Enfield, where the time-workers are not affected, the fall in weekly earnings of men hitherto on piece-work will range from about 13s. to 23s., representing the difference between recent piece-work earnings and time wages for a full week.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it a fact that under the action which the Government have taken the wages of the poorer-paid labourers at Woolwich will be reduced to £2 3s. 10d. a week?

Mr. SHAW: I could not say from memory, but I have no reason to doubt those figures.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Financial Secretary has refused to see the union, which is largely composed of the poorer-paid men, or to receive representations on their behalf?

Mr. SHAW: I am aware that the Financial Secretary has refused to deal with more than one organisation in this matter.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in a matter that so seriously affects such a large body of people he should be willing to receive a deputation from any body of men who desire to put their views before him?

Mr. SHAW: No, I think it is essential that the body which represents the whole of the different classes of workers should be the body to negotiate for the workers as a whole.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Then will the right hon. Gentleman say why he did not consult the secondary schools in the other matter?

CADET CORPS.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War on what date he received a deputation regarding the abolition of grants to cadet corps, and who composed the deputation?

Mr. SHAW: I received a deputation on 13th March from the National Union of Teachers, which consisted of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and Messrs. Humphrey and Hoare.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Were any of the members of this Association in any way connected with schools which had cadet battalions attached to them?

Mr. SHAW: All I know is that they were members of the National Union of Teachers.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is not the real force in this matter the Minister of Education?

Mr. SHAW: In ordinary courtesy I receive deputations from representative bodies on matters connected with War Office business.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this deputation was representative of the whole of the National Union of Teachers?

Mr. SHAW: I know that the secretary sent their names to me, and I take it that they were official.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether when considering if War Office assistance should be withdrawn from cadet corps, he took any steps to ascertain the views of the head masters of secondary schools; and, if so, by whom such views were put before him?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he consulted any educational body other than the National Union of Teachers before deciding to withdraw the grant for cadets; and, if not, whether he will ascertain the opinion of masters engaged in the secondary schools on the subject of cadet training?

Mr. SHAW: The answer is in the negative. Had I received requests from any other representative bodies to receive a deputation I should have met them.

Mr. LEWIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he expects an association to ask him to consult them about a matter concerning which they know nothing?

Mr. SHAW: I have answered the hon. Member's question. I did not expect anybody to consult me on matters on which they know nothing. I have simply answered the question.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Seeing that there is a diversity of opinion regarding the course taken, will the right hon. Gentleman withhold his decision until he has been consulted by all those interested in this movement?

Mr. SHAW: No, Sir, the Government take full responsibility for the decision.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his attitude to this movement with wearing a sword with his Court dress?

HOWARD-BURY: 10
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether cadet corps will in future be able to obtain the loan of Government stores, such as blankets and kitchen utensils for camp, or whether such existing facilities are to be taken away;
(2) whether, seeing that the grants to cadet corps are to be discontinued in the future, he will allow these bodies to be officially recognised by the War Office and by the Territorial Army Association;
(3) whether cadets will in future be allowed to use Government ground if available for camping or for exercise?

Mr. SHAW: As I have already indicated, official recognition, with the grants and privileges which accompanied it, will be withdrawn from these units. In order, however, not to interfere with arrangements already entered into, the decision will take effect from 31st October next, but the full grants for the cadet year under the usual conditions will be paid in respect of the year 1930.

Colonel H0WARD-BURY: ; With regard to the first question, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether blankets and other perishable stores will be allowed to rot rather than that use should be made of them? With regard to the last question, even if you cannot give recog-
nition, cannot you allow them to use Government ground when it is not wanted for other purposes?

Mr. SHAW: There is no intention of allowing Government stores to rot. The connection between this corps and the Territorial side of the Army must finish at the end of the current year.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question with regard to Government ground?

Mr. SHAW: I answered the question quite definitely—at the end of this year the connection must cease—all connection must cease.

ROYAL ARTILLERY BAND, WOOLWICH (VACCINATION).

Mr. GROVES: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the members of the Royal Artillery band of Woolwich were marched to hospital for vaccination on Friday, 28th March; that most of them refused the operation; that some of these were threatened with withdrawal of passes and stoppage of leave; whether he will repeat the assurance given by his Department on 29th December, 1922, that it was never intended to make vaccination compulsory for the band; and whether he will see that no intimidation of any sort is used towards bandsmen who decline to be vaccinated?

Mr. SHAW: I am making inquiry into this matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as the inquiry is complete.

EMPLOYÉS, ORDNANCE FACTORIES (PENSIONS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received representations respecting the establishment of a scheme of contributory pensions for retiring employés of the ordnance factories; and whether any decision has been arrived at?

Mr. SHAW: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the answer which I gave on 1st April to the right hon. Member for Woolwich West (Sir K. Wood).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman amplify that answer in view of the interest which is taken in this question?

Mr. SHAW: At present, no, Sir.

RATION ALLOWANCES.

Mr. FREEMAN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to reconsider the question of the proposed reductions of the ration allowance to non-commissioned officers and men when on leave from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 0¾d. per day?

Mr. OLDFIELD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for War the amount per day of ration money supplied to non-commissioned officers and men on leave prior to and after 1st April, 1930?

Mr. T. SHAW: To prevent possible misapprehension, I would point out that all ranks, including officers, draw the same rates of ration allowance under the same conditions. The lower rate of 1s. 0¾d. a day now admissible during leave represents the actual cost of the ration to the public, whereas the higher rate of 1s. 7d. represents the estimated retail cost of the same food. The higher rate is now only admissible in cases where the recipient is prevented by the exigencies of the Service from drawing rations in kind, a condition which obviously does not cover leave of absence taken for private purposes. The saving resulting from the change is not considerable in the case of any individual, but the aggregate of these savings has provided me with funds for the removal of a number of anomalies and hardships affecting all ranks which have long called for remedy. I am reconsidering the matter.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the economy is?

Mr. SHAW: In 1925, I think it was, a Committee was set up in connection with the Treasury to rearrange certain payments made and to give help to certain cases that were very hard. That had to be done with the money at our disposal, and the result is that a diminution was made in the pay of men who go on furlough, but I have promised to reconsider the matter.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: How much was the saving?

Mr. SHAW: I are afraid that I cannot carry in my mind the gross sums, but I will, with the hon. Member's permission, send him the figures.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what benefits are proposed to be given to the men in view of this reduction?

Mr. SHAW: There are certain benefits of a very substantial kind given to men, particularly married men, serving abroad.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of the staff employed by the Imperial War Graves Commission; and whether he will set up an inquiry to ascertain whether the present number is necessary?

Mr. SHAW: The number of staff employed by the Imperial War Graves Commission in all parts of the world is 1,022, including natives. As regards the second part of the question the numbers employed are constantly under review, the Commission are satisfied that they are necessary for the current work, and consequently I do not think any special inquiry necessary.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Do I take it that the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he can find full-time work for all the members of this staff?

Mr. SHAW: From inquiries I have made I am satisfied that the work is very efficiently carried out and that it is very efficiently supervised. May I call my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that this is an Empire Board and not merely a British Board?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING, MORAY FIRTH.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to continued complaints of illegal trawling and consequent losses of gear by inshore fishermen in the Moray Firth, and to other complaints of illegal trawling from other parts of the coasts of Scotland; whether he is yet in a position to state his intentions with regard to the provision of fast motor-boats for fishery protection, the increase of penalties on conviction for illegal trawling, and the other outstanding recommendations of
Lord Mackenzie's Committee; and whether he contemplates doing anything to suppress illegal trawling?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): Since 28th January when the hon. and gallant Member asked a similar question no complaints of illegal trawling in the Moray Firth have been received, but five complaints have been received from the West Coast of Scotland. No definite evidence was forthcoming in support of these complaints. Five complaints of illegal seine-net fishing in the Moray Firth have been received. Three are under investigation; one was investigated by the Procurator Fiscal, who decided that the evidence did not justify proceedings, and in the remaining case there was no evidence sufficient to enable the matter to be reported to the Procurator Fiscal. As regards the provision of fast motor boats, I would refer to my reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) on the 25th March; and as regards the other matters referred to in the latter part of the question, I am not in a position to add to my previous reply to the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Was not the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer on this question to the effect that he was giving the recommendation of Lord Mackenzie's Committee his consideration, and can he say how many more months it will take before he can come to a decision as to when these vital recommendations can be put into effect for the prevention of illegal trawling?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland not aware that the number of complaints received is only one-tenth part of a decimal of the

Illegal Trawling.


Period.
Complaints received.
Number of prosecutions.
Number of convictions.


(a) Year 1929
32
13
12


(b) Since 1st January, 1930, to date …
10
5
5


Illegal Seine-Net Fishing


(a) Year 1929 … … … …
31
12
12


(b) Since 1st January, 1930, to date …
4*
—
—


* 3 of these cases have been reported to the appropriate Procurator Fiscal and are at present under consideration.

number of offences that are committed, and how can he expect to get evidence of illegal trawling if he does not provide enough boats to catch illegal trawlers?

Mr. ADAMSON: In my reply to a similar question quite recently, I gave a list of the boats that we have on duty dealing with illegal trawling.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is this not a political stunt on the part of hon. Members of this House?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question, whether he contemplates doing anything to suppress illegal trawling? Is it not time that the Secretary of State for Scotland instituted proceedings against those people who have been caught trawling illegally? Illegal trawling ought to be stopped at once, and that is the only way to stop it. This illegal trawling has been going on round the coast of Scotland for years under every succeeding Secretary of State for Scotland, and it is still going on.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my supplementary question as to whether he is still considering this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: We shall never get on at all at this rate.

Mr. MACLEAN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of complaints made to his Department against trawling within the limit; the number of prosecutions that have followed; and the number of convictions that have been made?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the evidence placed before him with regard to the damage done to cod nets by foreign trawlers recently in the Moray Firth; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I have considered the information to which the hon. Member refers, and I do not think that in any of these cases there is sufficient evidence to justify His Majesty's Government in asking the foreign Government concerned to take proceedings for an offence against the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882. In any event, action for compensation would have to be taken in the foreign Court by the plaintiffs. It should be understood that to leave nets for a prolonged period unlighted and unwatched is to incur very serious risk of loss or damage.

Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the evidence which was submitted to him so that fishermen may know what damage was done?

Mr. GRAHAM: I regret that I can hardly at the moment undertake to make it public, but I will gladly discuss it with any hon. Member who is interested. I feel that on the evidence before me I could not take action beyond what is indicated in the reply.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the number of unsatisfied applicants for small holdings in nearly every county in Scotland, he proposes to ask Parliament to make up the loss caused to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund by the diversion of £12,805 for the purpose of erecting houses on the Wester Hailes estate within the city of Edinburgh?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The hon. and gallant Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The sum referred to, which includes provision for steadings as well as for houses, is part of the cost of a scheme of land settlement to provide for some of the applicants to whom he
refers, and. is a competent and proper charge on the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that these houses are being erected inside the city boundary of Edinburgh, and surely this wealthy corporation should be able to build houses for its own people inside its own boundary without drawing upon the scanty resources of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund?

Mr. ADAMSON: In my reply, I directed the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the fact that these charges were for steadings as well as for houses.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to state wren Part of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, will be brought into operation?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my replies to questions on this subject on the 18th February and 25th March to which I am not yet in a position to add.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Can tie right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that something will be done before Whitsuntide? It is vital for these farmers that they should get these credits before Whitsuntide.

Mr. ADAMSON: Only a week ago I pointed out that I was in negotiation with regard to this matter. Surely, it is an unreasonable request. to ask anyone, while negotiations are going on, to name a date when the negotiations will be complete.

Sir HARRY HOPE: In the event of the Scottish banks refusing to operate this scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to link up Scotland with the English Measure?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already taken steps to have this matter considered outside the banks.

COUNCIL HOUSES (RATES).

Mr. HARDIE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the annual revenue in local rates from houses to let under the 1924 scheme erected by local authorities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): I regret that the information asked for is not available and I am advised that its collection would entail a considerable expenditure of time and money. I trust that my hon. Friend will see his way not to press for it.

Mr. HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the question which I have put to him on the same lines that he has always adopted, and I think that he ought to let the House know what he is doing in regard to this important matter. I press for an answer to my question whether he will not arrange that at the end of whatever the date may be during the financial year when all these communities close their accounts, the returns shall be made out and transmitted to the Scottish Department in order that we may know what is being done?

STATEMENT giving particulars as to the number of houses built by Glasgow Corporation and the
amount of arrears of rent in connection therewith.


Statue.
Houses having


2 apartments.
Arrears.
3 apartments.
Arrears.
4 apartments.
Arrears.
5 apartments.
Arrears.




£
s
d

£
s
d.

£
s
d

£
s
d.


Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.
28
83
16
0
64
5
4
0
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


Housing, Town Planning etc.(Scotland) Act,1919.
Nil
Nil
2,708
1,677
3
9
1,737
718
5
0
542
149
13
4


Housing etc. Act, 1923:—


General Housing ‖
42
17
8
7
1,089
493
10
1
828
595
16
4
93
124
9
4


Slum Clearance …
2,390
2,126
0
0
1,568
1,485
9
5
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
Nil
Nil
8,448
3,571
4
1
2,607
1,173
2
2
115
1,126
1
8


Totals
2,460
2,227
4
7
13,877
7,232
11
4
5,172
2,487
3
6
750
1,400
4
4

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Mr. TRAIN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the number of institutions in Scotland for children certified under the Mental Deficiency Act; and if he can give the total number of certified mentally defective children who are boarded with their parents?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The number of institutions in Scotland for children certified under the Mental Deficiency Act is eight, and the total number of

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, Sir. If the hon. Member will be satisfied with the figures to the end of the financial year we might consider that, but the information asked for is not available at the present time.

HOUSING, GLASGOW.

Mr. TRAIN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give the total number of five-, four-, three-, and two-apartment houses built by the Corporation of Glasgow under the various Housing Acts; and whether he can state the amount of arrears of rent in each class of house respectively?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Corporation of Glasgow inform me that the figures are as shown in the tabular statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement:

certified mentally deficient children under 16 years of age who are boarded with their parents is 40.

Mr. TRAIN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of mentally defective children in Scotland certified under the Mental Deficiency Act; what proportion are certified as educable; how many teachers are engaged in educating them; and what is the size of the classes?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The number of mentally defective children in Scotland
under 16 years of age who have been certified under the Mental Deficiency Act is 706, of whom 204, or approximately 29 per cent., are certified as educable. The number of teachers engaged in educating such children is 20, and the average number of pupils in each class is 19.

Mr. TRAIN: Is the Under-Secretary quite satisfied that the local authorities are doing their best to administer this Act in Scotland?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I have no reason to doubt that that is the fact, but, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I shall be glad to receive it.

Mr. KINLEY: May I ask whether the institution in which these mental defectives are kept is under the Board of Control?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should not care to answer that question without notice, but that is my impression.

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (SUBSIDY).

Major WOOD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid in subsidies in Scotland under the Corn Production Acts during each year they were in operation?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: A subsidy under the Corn Production Acts was paid in respect of the 1921 crop only. The total amount paid in Scotland in respect of that crop was £4,182,876.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of these subsidies was paid for oats and how much for wheat?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Not without notice.

Mr. BROWN: I will put the question down.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Major ELLIOT: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses at present under construction in Scotland under slum clearance schemes and the number under construction at the corresponding date last year?

Mr. JOHNSTON: As at the 28th February, 1930, the latest date for which
particulars are available, the number of houses under construction in Scotland. under slum clearance schemes was 2,135. The number under construction at the corresponding date last year was 2,443.

Major ELLIOT: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses at present under construction in Glasgow under slum clearance schemes and the number under construction at the corresponding date last year?

Mr. JOHNSTON: As at the 28th February, 1930, the latest date for which particulars are available, the number of houses under construction in Glasgow under slum clearance schemes was 1,308. The number under construction at the corresponding date last year was 906.

GENERAL REGISTER HOUSE.

Mr. E. BROWN: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons for the delay in filling the two vacancies which occurred on 16th January last in the first-class clerk grade in the office of His Majesty's Registers and Records of Scotland?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Two vacancies arose in His Majesty's General Register House on 19th January last, owing to the retirement of an assistant keeper and the accountant, and were filled by two promotions. The delay in filling the consequential vacancies for first-class clerks is due to the reconstitution of the Departmental Promotion Board and careful review of the claims and qualifications of the officers eligible for promotion. I hope that it will be possible to announce the appointments at an early date.

STATE-ASSISTED HOUSING SCHEMES (EMPLOYMENT).

Major ELLIOT: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average number of men per month employed on State-assisted housing schemes from September, 1928, to February, 1929, inclusive, and the average numbers per month similarly employed from September, 1929, to February, 1930, inclusive?

Mr. JOHNSTON: As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The average numbers of men employed monthly on State-assisted housing schemes promoted by
local authorities for the periods in question were as follows:—


—
Average number of men employed.
—
Average number of men employed.


1928.

1929.



September
…
…
…
11,719
September
…
…
7,211


October
…
…
…
10,779
October
…
…
6,398


November
…
…
…
10,409
November
…
…
5,472


December
…
…
…
9,113
December
…
…
5,117


1929.

1930.



January
…
…
…
6,428
January
…
…
4,826


February
…
…
…
4,838
February
…
…
4,723

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. HANNON: 32.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the amounts which have been approved under the Development Act for improvement schemes promoted by the London and North Eastern Railway Company; and if he can indicate the probable dates when work upon any or all of those schemes will be undertaken?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (KING'S CROSS-WELWYN).

Mr. HANNON: 33.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether progress is being made with the project for the electrification of the Great Northern Railway from King's Cross to Welwyn Garden City; and the probable date when the scheme can be commenced and employment opportunities made available?

Mr. THOMAS: An application for assistance under Part 1 of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, in respect of this scheme, has recently been submitted to the Advisory Committee, and is under consideration. It is understood from the application that, if the work is approved for grant, a commencement could be made in about nine months from the date of approval.

Mr. HANNON: Will the Lord Privy Seal do everything he can by the use of his personal influence to facilitate this scheme, so that employment may be offered to people who are now waiting for it?

Mr. THOMAS: Seven months ago I invited the railway companies to meet me, and one of the schemes which I had in mind, and which I urged, was this particular scheme. I am still urging it, and it has reached the stage which I have now indicated.

SWANSEA DOCK (ENTRANCE LOCK).

Mr. HANNON: 34.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can make any statement on the alternative scheme prepared by the Great Western Railway Company for a new entrance lock at Swansea, following upon the rejection of the original Swansea dock scheme; if the promotion of a new Bill is necessary; and, if so, will he secure facilities to accelerate its passage through Parliament?

Mr. THOMAS: An alternative scheme for the new entrance lock at Swansea has been framed by the Great Western Railway Company which, it is anticipated, will avoid the previous difficulties. In connection with this scheme, it is considered appropriate to obtain powers, as some of the works to be carried out are below high-water mark, and the railway company are, therefore, promoting a late Bill. In pursuance of the powers conferred upon me, I have certified this Bill as a Bill containing provisions relating to works, the execution of which would substantially contribute to the early relief of unemployment.

Mr. HANNON: Will the railway company in this particular case make an application for a guarantee under the Development Act?

Mr. THOMAS: So far as I am aware, the Committee upstairs found the Preamble of the Bill not proved on this head.
I immediately took steps to call the parties together, to see if an amended scheme could be agreed upon. I am pleased to say that an amended scheme has been agreed upon, and there is reason to believe that it will not be opposed; and I have, therefore, certified the Bill.

RAILWAY STEEL SLEEPERS.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 35.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now make any further statement with regard to the use in this country of steel railway sleepers?

Mr. TH0MAS: As I stated recently in reply to a previous question on this subject, considerable orders for steel sleepers have been placed, and I am asking the railway companies to furnish me with a report on the position.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to state what percentage of the whole are steel sleepers?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly; but the importance of this matter from the stand-point of the country, as distinct from any party, is that, in the main, wood sleepers are imported, while steel sleepers are made here, and I am concerned with getting them made here.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Sir K. WOOD: 36.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the committee considering proposals relating to the mitigation of unemployment have yet reached any conclusions?

Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject on the 4th March.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the urgency of this matter, and the impatience of the Chancellor of the Duchy?

Mr. THOMAS: If I were satisfied that the impatience of the right hon. Gentleman was equal to that of the Chancellor of the Duchy, I should be really happy.

INDUSTRIAL LAND LEASES (RENEWAL).

Mr. KELLY: 37.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to cases of refusal to renew leases
of land now in use for the employment of men in industry when such refusal will result in throwing men out of work; and whether he is prepared to take action to prevent the stoppage of necessary work owing to causes of this nature?

Mr. THOMAS: If my hon. Friend has any particular case of this kind in mind, and will supply me with the particulars, I will look into it.

Mr. KELLY: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to what is happening in the tin mining and china clay industries, in which there is likely to be serious unemployment owing to a member of the other House refusing to renew leases?

Mr. THOMAS: My particular attention has not been called to what I presume is the action of the Noble Lord in question, but it is not for me to judge the case until I have investigated it. If particulars are sent to me, I will certainly look into them.

RATIONALISATION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he was consulted with regard to the formation of the proposed £6,000,000 company for the purpose of rationalising British industry?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt have seen in the Press the authoritative statement that the reports which have appeared on this matter are premature and in some respects incorrect. I hope at an early date to make a public statement on the matter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of misapprehension on this matter, which would be relieved by a knowledge that he was being actively consulted?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not sure that there is apprehension, but I know that there is anxiety, and I indicated in my speech on Friday, and I say again now, that I am empowered to tell the House that I hope very soon to be able to make an authoritative statement. That is the best indication that I have not only been in touch but in agreement on the proposal.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will my right hon. Friend be able to assure the House then that the rights of the men will be safeguarded?

Mr. THOMAS: I am afraid that, as I said in my answer to the question on the Paper, the statements in the Press were both premature and inaccurate. The object of this scheme, in a sentence, is to help industry.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is there any indication as to the nature of this £6,000,000 scheme, about which no one seems to know anything? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what it is and when it comes into operation, or whether it is a mare's nest?

Mr. SPEAKER: Those questions go beyond the question on the Paper.

DOMINIONS (MINISTER'S VISITS).

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 39.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he contemplates any further visits to the Dominions on the lines of his tour in Canada in search of fresh openings for the provision of employment?

Mr. THOMAS: If I felt that I could be sure of equally good results, I would not hesitate to make further visits.

Sir G. PENNY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that his immediate colleagues may be withholding any proposals which might be helpful to him?

Mr. THOMAS: If I contemplated being able to make the trip so successful as to lead, for instance, to the obtaining of a definite new order, for among other things, 40,000 tons of coal. I should be delighted to do it.

AGED WORKERS (PENSIONS).

Sir K. WOOD: 40.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether with a view to mitigating unemployment, a practicable scheme has yet been devised of facilitating retirement by pensioning of aged workers?

Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 4th March to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham).

Sir K. WOOD: Am I right in drawing from that answer the inference that there is no practical scheme at the present time?

Major COLVILLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the pension scheme which has recently been started by one of the safeguarded industries in this country?

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES (SOUTHERN TANGANYIKA).

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 42.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he proposes to use the provisions of the Colonial Development Act to encourage railway construction in Southern Tanganyika?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, Sir. As soon as the Governor can submit definite proposals, they will be referred to the Colonial Development Committee.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that there is no forced labour on this scheme?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Have any instances of forced labour been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice?

LONDON TUBE RAILWAYS (ILFORD).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 43.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the present position of the proposed tube to Ilford; and what is preventing the London and North Eastern Railway Company from getting on with their promised scheme?

Mr. THOMAS: I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 18th February. I understand that the London and North Eastern Railway Company are still considering this scheme.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. DAY: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any complaints from companies or persons interested in the production of British talking films to the effect that the methods and apparatus that are being employed by the foreign manufacturers of talking pictures are such as to defeat the provisions contained in the Cinematograph Films Act; and is he prepared to set up a committee to inquire as to whether further or amending legislation is necessary?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. MANDER: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take at the present juncture to secure in this country the establishment of the multi-lingual talking-film industry, in view of the special advantages existing in this country as against the United States of America?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Films in more than one language are already being made in this country, and I fear it would be difficult, even if it were necessary, to promise any special support on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive representations from hon. Members in different parts of the House who are interested in this question?

Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, certainly.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the advisory committee has considered this matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. MANDER: 84.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his Department has received any reports from their representative in the United States of America with reference to propaganda value for the purposes of export trade of American films; if so, what is the purport of these reports; and what steps it is proposed to take to obtain similar advantages for British industry by the same means?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Commercial Counsellor at Washington reported in July, 1929, that a special Motion Picture Division had been created in the United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce to promote sales abroad of films made in the United States of America. This step was taken in recognition of the importance of the world trade in American films as an indirect advertising medium for American goods in general. The whole question of the propaganda value of British films for the purposes of export trade is under consideration.

LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Commander SOUTHBY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that it is neither the policy nor the intention of the Government to conclude any agreement, other than a five-Power agreement, at the Naval Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer is in the negative, but as I have frequently informed the House, the Government are still working to secure a five-Power agreement.

ELECTORAL LAW.

Sir G. PENNY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the Report of the Ullswater Commission on Electoral Reform?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I have no information.

Sir G. PENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to hasten the findings of the Commission so as to relieve the natural anxieties of the Liberal party, and also to give some idea how long the Government will be allowed to remain in office?

NORFOLK COUNTY CRICKET CLUB (CORPORATION DUTY).

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a demand for Corporation Duty has recently been made from the Norfolk County Cricket Club; that the total assets of the Club are 17 small tents, two cricket nets, 22 yards of cocoanut matting, and a few Treasury bonds; and whether, in his Budget, he will consider the abolition of this duty?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The Club referred to has been called upon to furnish a return for Corporation Duty purposes. In reply to the last part of the question, I am not prepared to anticipate the Budget statement.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOAN INTEREST).

Mr. McENTEE: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in
view of the recent reductions in the bank rate, he can see his way to reduce the rate of interest now being charged to local authorities on money borrowed from the Public Works Loan Fund?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead East (Mr. White) on 27th March.

COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.

Sir G. PENNY: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of Commissions and Committees set up by the Government; and how many of these have already reported?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The appointment of 36 Commissions and Committees has been announced since the present Government took office. Final reports have been received from six and interim reports from two of these bodies.

Sir G. PENNY: Does the hon. Member intend to delegate the thinking powers of the Government to any further Committee?

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Does not that average one per week for the 36 weeks that the Government have been in office?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

EX-SERVICE MEN (SALARIES ON ESTABLISHMENT).

Sir F. HALL: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that permanent non-pensionable ex-service clerks in the Civil Service in receipt of weekly salaries of either £5 3s. 7d. (Grade 1), £4 6s. (Grade II), and £3 13s. 1d. (Grade III), London 44–hour week, when appointed to the established clerical classes under the provisions of Clause 5 of the Government Memorandum of 12th January, 1925, would have their pay reduced by nearly £80, £44, and £24, respectively, per annum; and will he state precisely what benefits accrue to the officers concerned in exchange for such deductions of pay?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am aware that by the application of the starting pay rules laid down by the
Lytton and Southborough Committees and the Industrial Court, some of the officers of the class mentioned may suffer temporary loss on promotion to the established clerical classes, and representations on this matter by the staff interests concerned are under consideration. With regard to the latter part of the question, such officers on establishment obtain substantially better conditions of pension, leave and sick leave, and in addition receive, according to the circumstances of appointment, scales of salary rising to yearly maxima, inclusive of bonus, of £361, £330 and £273.

Sir F. HALL: If there should be such very large deductions, in some cases amounting to 30s. a week, from the small salaries which these people earn, and as the matter is being looked into, will the hon. Gentleman undertake that it shall be hurried up with a view to improving the position of these men, who have very scanty pay?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot add anything to my answer.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as between one established grade of civil servants and another, the rule governing salaries on promotion is that there shall be at least no loss, and will he bear that in mind in considering the representations which he has received, and will he also tell us when a reply is likely to be received to those representations?

Mr. PETH1CK-LAWRENCE: I cannot add anything to my answer.

Sir F. HALL: I will ask the question again immediately after the Easter holidays.

INLAND REVENUE (VALUATION OFFICE).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the inconvenience experienced by local authorities in the execution of essential public works, including schemes intended for the relief of unemployment, by reason of the long time which often elapses before the district valuer of the Board of Inland Revenue submits his reports and valuations, and the delay in obtaining grants from the Government Departments; and whether he will have the staffs of the district valuers increased in order more expedi-
tiously to cope with the work, and see that adequate measures are taken to prevent any unnecessary delay?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not aware that there is any undue delay on the part of the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue in dealing with the matters to which the hon. Member refers; but if he will furnish me with particulars of any cases in which he considers that there has been such delay, I will cause inquiry to be made into them.

BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the cost of pensions to blind persons; and what would be the increased cost if the age limit was reduced to 40 years of age?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The present annual cost of pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, is approximately £570,000. This does not include the amounts drawn by blind persons under the Contributory Pensions and Old Age Pensions Acts. It is estimated that a reduction of the age limit to 40 would increase the cost to the Exchequer by about £150,000.

PRINTING, PAPER, AND STATIONERY (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. BEN RILEY: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the total amount spent by the State on printing, paper, and stationery for the years 1913, 1923, and 1928, respectively; and also the value of printing, paper, and

Latest Available Year.
Law Officer.
Salary.
Fees.
Total.



Attorney-General.
£
£
s
d
£
s
d.


1st April, 1928,
Sir Douglas Hogg
…
…
—
2,473
5
10
2,473
5
10


to
Sir Thomas Inskip
…
…
7,000
7,854
2
4
14,854
2
4


31st March, 1929.




Solicitor-General.




Sir Thomas Inskip
…
…
—
1,773
13
0
1,773
13
0



Sir F. B. Merriman
…
…
6,000
6,466
18
6
12,466
18
6

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Government endeavour to take steps to reduce these excessive emoluments?
stationery supplied by Government printing works for the same years?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total amount spent by His Majesty's Stationery Office on printing, paper, and stationery, supplied for the use of the public service during the years 1913, 1923, and 1928, respectively, was:






£


1913–14
…
…
…
1,059,724


1923–24
…
…
…
1,523,966


1928–29
…
…
…
1,568,037

The Stationery Office printing works do not supply paper and stationery, but are concerned only with printing and binding. The value of the printing and binding carried out by these works for the use of the public service during the same years was:






£


1913–14
…
…
…
Nil


1923–24
…
…
…
447,037


1928–29
…
…
…
529,066

LAW OFFICERS (EMOLUMENTS).

Mr. LAMBERT: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of salary plus fees received by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for the latest available year?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The figures for the latest year available, which is that ending 31st March, 1929, are as follow:

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not for me to give an answer

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the hon. Gentleman add to the information and say what are the fees received by the present Law Officers?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The figures for the year ending 31st March, 1930, are not yet available.

Sir K. WOOD: Has there been any change for the better with a Socialist Attorney-General?

Mr. HARDIE: Should not the man be carrying out his job for the salary he gets for the job? Is this work outside Government work, and, if so, why should he be paid for it?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting beyond the question on the Paper.

COMPANIES ACT.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons why a certain limited liability company and four of its directors, fined on 28th March by the Lord Mayor of London for infringement of the Companies Act, were allowed by the Board of Trade to disregard the Act, in that from August, 1928, until the date upon which they were summoned at the instance of a private person and convicted they ignored their statutory obligation to file returns at Somerset House and issue a profit-and-loss account within the required period?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: If the hon. Member will refer to Sections 110, 112 and 123 of the Companies Act, 1929, he will see that the time limits in the case of this company expired in November and December, 1929, not in August, 1928, as suggested in the question. A complete list of the companies which have failed to file returns in respect of a calendar year cannot be compiled until after the end of the following January. Action was taken by the Solicitor to the Board of Trade as soon as this company was reported to him as having failed to make a return for 1929. The return was filed on 26th March.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish in the Board of Trade Journal, on or about 1st May next, the number of those public companies which
have by then not filed annual accounts and balance sheets for the year 1929; will he then indicate how many out of that number are companies in liquidation and the approximate number of cases in which there is an incomplete return; and will he also arrange that a similar list shall be published in the Board of Trade Journal during the first week in April in every future year?

Mr. GRAHAM: If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question at the date he mentions, I will endeavour to give him the information he desires. I will consider his proposal in regard to future years.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

SHIPPING LAID UP.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of shipping tonnage laid up in home ports at convenient dates in November, 1929, and in March, 1930, respectively?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The only information available is that published in the quarterly returns of laid-up tonnage issued by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. According to these returns, on 1st October, 1929, 122 vessels, of a total net tonnage of 265,997, were
reported as laid up in the principal ports of the United Kingdom. On 1st January, 1930, 167 vessels, of a total net tonnage of 352,659, were similarly reported as laid up. Corresponding figures for the past quarter are not yet available.

WRECKED STEAMER "WHEATPLAIN."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information about the alleged looting of the steamer "Wheatplain," wrecked on Tory Island; and whether any compensation is to be made to the crew for the loss of their kit?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: A copy of the master's deposition in this case, containing a reference to the conduct of the inhabitants of the island, has only just been received in my Department and is now being considered. I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible of the result of our investigations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these are not the first seamen who have been robbed by the Tory islanders?

Mr. GRAHAM: I admit that its name is rather against this island.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Historically, does not my right hon. Friend know that these islanders have had a bad name for many years?

Mr. THURTLE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are any escaped monkeys on this island?

BRITISH SEAMEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. MACLEAN: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the number of unemployed seamen in this country, he is prepared to consider the fixing of a quota for such ships as employ foreign seamen?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 25th March to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery), a copy of which I am sending to him.

INTERNATIONAL LOAD LINE CONFERENCE.

Sir BASIL PETO: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any further replies have been received to the invitations of His Majesty's Government to participate in the forthcoming International Load Line Conference, which opens in London on 20th May next, which have been sent to the Governments of foreign maritime countries, the Dominions, and India; and, if so, what further acceptances have been received?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Acceptances of the invitation to participate in the International Load Line Conference have so far been received from 19 Governments, a list of which will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

Australia, Canada, India, Irish Free State, New Zealand, Belgium, Chile, Cuba, Finland, France, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, United States of America and Yugoslavia.

FERRY SERVICE, LLANSTEPHAN.

Mr. HOPKIN: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the state of the foreshore near Ferryside and Llanstephan, Carmarthenshire, with regard tc the ferry landing stages; and if he will inquire into this matter with a view to the ferry service being made effective at all states of the tide?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have been informed of the present position, but I am afraid that I have no power to compel the lessees of the sites of the stages to make the ferry service effective. The question of the need from the point of view of the public for an improved ferry service appears to be one for the local authorities.

IMPORT DUTIES, UNITED STATES (LACE).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now considered the proposal that he should make representation to the United States of America on the subject of the proposed increase of duties on lace and lace net; whether such representations have been made; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I has e given the matter further consideration, but I regret that I am still of the opinion that representations to the United States Government in the matter would not serve any useful purpose.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that these representations would be much more successful if he had retaliatory powers?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

BREAD PRICES.

Mr. LAMBERT: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute an inquiry as to why the price of bread should be 8d. to 9d. per 4-1b. loaf now as compared with 5d. to 6d. in 1913, having regard to the fact that British wheat prices are, approximately, similar for both periods?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the rise in the retail price of bread; whether the Food Council has investigated this increase; and what is the justification for it in view of the low price of wheat?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As I stated in the House on 11th February, the price of the loaf is dependent on many factors besides the price of wheat. I understand that the London associations of bakers have decided to apply a scale of bread prices which is on a higher level than that approved by the Food Council and the matter is now under consideration by the Food Council.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman really make inquiry to show us why it is that there is this great disparity in prices between now and pre-War?

Mr. GRAHAM: This matter has very frequently been reviewed. I shall he delighted to give the right hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member the very fullest information. I can assure the House that this proposed increase will again be most carefully analysed.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I respectfully point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, although this matter has been reviewed the cost of the loaf is still 3d. more than it was pre-War?

Mr. GRAHAM: On that point, I can only repeat what I have already said to the House, that in my view this matter can only be dealt with by giving the new Consumers' Council appropriate powers, and I have already stated that legislation to that end will be introduced at the earliest possible moment.

Colonel Sir T. VANSITTART BOWATER: Is it not a fact that wages at the present time are about twice what they were in 1914?

CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what representation, if any, will be given to British food producers on the Consumers' Council?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I cannot yet add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 17th December last.

Mr. TAYLOR: Having regard to the previous answer, is it not possible to secure economic justice for both producer and consumer by giving them representation on this council?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot say anything to-day regarding the exact constitution of the council, but I can assure my hon. Friend that all stages in the production and distribution of a commodity will be matters for analysis and consideration.

HUGLETH BARYTES MINE, SHROPSHIRE (ACCIDENT).

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 72.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has directed his attention to the fatal accident which occurred at the Hugleth barytes mine, Shropshire, on 21st March; and whether he contemplates any alteration in the mining regulations, with a view to preventing any possible recurrence of an accident from similar causes?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): This accident was due to the collapse of a platform, the ledge of rock supporting which had been shattered by a shot fired just previously. Although the shot was only about a yard from the edge of the platform, the miner who had fired it seems to have omitted to examine the supporting ledge and see whether it was still secure before he resumed his work upon the platform. I fear that there is no amendment of the mining regulations which could prevent the tragic consequences of momentary forgetfulness. The rules of the mine already provide for a careful examination of the roof and sides of every working place during the course of work, and especially after blasting.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CROSS HANDS COLLIERY, CARMARTHENSHIRE (DUST).

Mr. HOPKIN: 73.
asked the Secretary for Mines if the men working on pneumatic drills in the Cross Hands Colliery, Cross Hands, Carmarthenshire, are supplied with any means of protection against the dust?

Mr. TURNER: I am informed that the necessary equipment is on order for the one pneumatic drill now in occasional use, but that it has not yet been installed. The matter shall have my immediate attention.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is my hon. Friend aware that six men have died in this district in the last 12 months from silicosis?

Mr. TURNER: The matter is having my urgent attention.

OVERTIME.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 74.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of cases reported of overtime being worked in the coal mines of Great Britain; whether any of the said cases have resulted in legal proceedings; and, if so, in how many cases and with what result?

Mr. TURNER: I cannot give any useful figure of the number of reports of overtime working which have been received. Any complaints on this subject are normally made to the divisional inspector and not to my Department in London. A distinction moreover would have to be made between cases in which the overtime appeared to be allowed by the terms of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, and those in which it did not. During the present year legal proceedings have been taken in one case and a conviction obtained but an appeal has been entered. In six other cases, two in Scotland, and four in England, the question of taking proceedings has been referred to the competent legal authorities for examination.

Mr. TINKER: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the report of a fatal accident in a Sunderland colliery where the men concerned had been working an hour after the legal time?

Mr. TURNER: I shall be very glad to give an answer if that question is put upon the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE CABINETS (SMOKING).

Mr. DAY: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider, where there are several telephone cabinets for
the public use, of having one or more suitably labelled with the words smoking prohibited?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): It is undesirable to add to the number of notices necessarily displayed in or on telephone cabinets; and as that now proposed would in most cases be a dead letter I do not propose to adopt it.

ONE-PIECE TELEPHONE INSTRUMENT.

Captain CAZALET: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the cost to the Post Office of a single one-piece telephone instrument; and whether these instruments are manufactured in England?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I regret that I cannot disclose the contract price which must necessarily be regarded as confidential. All the instruments are manufactured in England.

Captain CAZALET: In view of the greater facilities and efficiency of these one-piece instruments, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage their use in this country by reducing the price?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have already explained that, after they have been used for one year, I propose to review the rental charge.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 78.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will state, for each year during which the cash-on-delivery service has been in operation, the number of parcels carried and the percentage returned undelivered; and whether any extension of facilities is contemplated in the near future?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The numbers of inland cash-on-delivery parcels carried were, in round figures, in 1926, 767,000; in 1927, 1,521,000; in 1928, 1,863,000; and in 1929, 2,290,000. The percentages of parcels returned as undeliverable during those years were 2.29 per cent., 2.15 per cent., 2.19 per cent. and 2.49 per cent., respectively. The figures include packets sent by letter post since the service was extended to the registered letter post on the 30th of April, 1928, but those comprise only a small proportion of the total. The question of extending the service is continually kept in mind.

Sir B. PETO: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General what was the percentage ratio to the premiums of the expenses of conducting life assurance business of the Post Office during the year 1929?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: During the calendar year 1929 the expenses of conducting life assurance business amounted to £3,232 and the premiums received during the year amounted to £13,726 14s. 8d. The charges for management were therefore 23.55 per cent. of the premiums received.

Sir B. PETO: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that is a very high percentage, and will he take some steps to increase the use of the Post Office for insurance purposes?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The percentage is lower than that of any industrial insurance society in the country. With regard to increasing the use of the Post Office for this purpose, I may explain that my difficulty is that the late Government abandoned a large part of it.

Sir K. WOOD: Has not this been a complete failure from beginning to end?

Mr. W. J. BROWN: May I ask whether the present Government propose to reinstitute the insurance scheme?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: To reinstitute it fully would require legislation.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the percentage ratio of the Post Office is only 1 pex cent. less than offices like the Prudential, who send weekly to the homes of the insured persons, whereas the Post Office demand that the insured people shall attend at the Post Office in order to pay their premiums?

Mr. BROWN: Is it proposed to introduce legislation?

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why there is only 1 per cent. difference, when other offices send weekly to the homes of the insured persons, while the Post Office insists that people should go to the Post Office to pay their premiums?

Sir B. PETO: 80.
asked the Postmaster-General on what bases the liabilities are valued under Post Office life assurance
contracts, apart from annuity contracts; whether the valuations during the past 10 years have disclosed surpluses; if so, how much surpluses, derived from the premiums of the assured, have been dealt with; and whether any bonuses have been declared and, if so, at what rates?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: At the date of the last two statutory quinquennial valuations at 31st December, 1920 and 31st December, 1925, the liabilities under life assurance contracts were valued so far as mortality is concerned on the basis of the table deduced from the mortality of healthy males insured with life insurance companies as published by the Institute of Actuaries in the year 1872 known as the H M table, with a rate of interest of 4 per cent. There is no separate fund in respect of life insurance contracts granted through the Post Office as the Act 27/8 Vic. c. 46—which was repealed and re-enacted in 19/20 Geo. V. c. 29—created one fund in respect of both deferred life annuity contracts and life insurance contracts. The last two quinquennial valuations of the assets and liabilities of this fund showed that the liabilities exceeded the assets and a contingent liability of £244,785 in this respect is, in accordance with Section 3 of the Act 27/8 Viet. c. 46—repealed and re-enacted in Section 67 of 19/20 Geo. V. c. 29—shown in the Finance Accounts, 1929. It will thus be observed that as the Valuations disclosed a deficiency of assets the question of disposal of surplus does not arise.

EDUCATION (EXAMINATIONS IN MINING).

Mr. HOPKIN: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Education if examinations in mining and kindred subjects are held at Pontyberem centre; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of holding such examinations there?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): I understand that no examinations in mining and kindred subjects are held at Pontyberem centre. In answer to the second part of the question, it rests with the local Education Authority to decide where such examinations are to be held

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the Prime Minister say what business he proposes to take to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: We would like to get the first five items on the Order Paper, including the Children (Employment Abroad) Bill, which is a Bill which we would all like to get. We also want Item 4, Ways and Means—Committee, and Item 3, Supply Committee, which is a building vote, and which we desire to get so that we may take advantage of the summer weather for building operations. I understand that this is commonly done. The Un-

employment Insurance (No. 3) Bill was agreed to in all respects, and there is only one Amendment on the Order Paper with regard to it. I hope that a great deal of time will not be taken in connection with that Bill. The programme looks to be a large one, but it is not one of substance.

Motion made, and Question put.
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 116.

Division No. 254.]
AYES.
[3.53 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kirkwood, D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Egan, W. H.
Knight, Holford


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Elmley, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
England, Colonel A.
Lang, Gordon


Alpass, J. H.
Foot, Isaac
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Ammon, Charles George
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lathan, G.


Arnott, John
Freeman, Peter
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Ayles, Walter
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Susan


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James


Barnes, Alfred John
Gill, T. H.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Barr, James
Gillett, George M.
Leach, W.


Batey, Joseph
Glassey, A. E.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Beckett. John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gossling, A. G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bellamy, Albert
Gould, F.
Lees, J.


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff,Central)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Granville, E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Longbottom, A. W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Longden, F.


Blindell, James
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lowth, Thomas


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Bowen, J. W.
Groves, Thomas E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Grundy, Thomas W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bromley, J.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
McElwee, A.


Brooke, W.
Hamilton, Slr R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McEntee, V. L.


Brothers, M.
Hardie, George D.
Mackinder, W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Harris, Percy A.
McKinlay, A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Haycock, A. W.
McShane, John James


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Buchanan, G.
Hayes, John Henry
Mansfield, W.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
March, S.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marcus, M.


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Markham, S. F.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marley, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Herrlotts, J.
Marshall, Fred


Charleton. H. C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mathers, George


Chater, Daniel
Hoffman, P. C.
Matters, L. W.


Church, Major A. G.
Hollins, A.
Melville, Sir James


Cluse, W. S.
Hopkin, Daniel
Mills, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Milner, Major J.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Horrabln, J. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Compton, Joseph
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfleid)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cove, William G.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Morrison, Horbert (Hackney, South)


Cowan, D. M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Daggar, George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mort, D. L.


Dallas, George
Johnston, Thomas
Moses, J. J. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Day, Harry
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Muff, G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Dickson, T.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Murnin, Hugh


Dukes, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Duncan, Charles
Kennedy, Thomas
Noel Baker. P. J.


Ede, James Chuter
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Oldfield. J. R.


Edmunds, J. E.
Kinley, J.
Owen. Major G. (Carnarvon)


Palin, John Henry
Scurr, John
Townend, A. E.


Paling, Wilfrid
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Palmer, E. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Turner, B.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shield, George William
Vaughan, D. J.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Walker, J.


Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Simmons, C. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Pole, Major D. G.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Price, M. P.
Sinkinson, George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Quibell, D. F. K.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wellock, Wilfred


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
West, F. R.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghiey)
Westwood, Joseph


Richards, R.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Snell, Harry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Ritson, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Roberts, Rt.Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Romeril, H. G.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wise, E. F.


Rothschild, J. de
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Strauss, G. R.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Thomas, Rt Hon. J. H. (Derby).



Sanders, W. S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sandham, E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Sawyer, G. F.
Tinker, John Joseph
William Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nield, Rt, Hon. Sir Herbert


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzonl, Sir John
Penny, Sir George


Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beaumont, M. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Betterton, Slr Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boyce, H. L.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Savery, S. S.


Bracken, B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Simms, Major-General J.


Butler, R. A.
Hanbury, C.
Skelton, A. N.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of 
Smith. R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J, G.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Tinne, J. A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Slr H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip 
Lamb, Slr J. Q.
Train, J.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davison, Slr W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Corn. O.(Handsw'th)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Eden. Captain Anthony
Lymington, Viscount
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marjoribanks, E. C.



Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ferguson, Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir


Fermoy, Lord
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Frederick Thomson.


Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I have handed in a Private Notice Question with respect to an accident at the Lady Beatrice Pit, New Herrington, County Durham. [HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot
hear a word!"] I have to address Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry if hon. Members cannot hear me. I handed in the notice as early as possible after I knew of the accident, but I have not had any reply. I should be glad if you could tell me why a reply has not been given.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to Private Notice Questions, I have to exercise my discretion, under certain Rules; otherwise, I might be invaded with such questions, and I should have no pretext for refusing them. In this instance, I understand that the accident occurred last Friday, and a question in regard to it might have been asked yesterday. Moreover, I understand that an inquiry is going on in regard to the accident, and it would be premature for the Government to give any answer as to the cause of it.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I understand that the Press have given an account as to how the accident occurred, and I should like to know whether their account is correct? May I ask the Secretary for Mines whether he has received any report from his inspector on this accident?

Mr. TURNER: We are awaiting a report from the inspector, and I can add nothing to the accounts in the newspapers.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the Secretary for Mines tell me when I may put a question in order to ascertain the truth of the matter?

Mr. TURNER: To-morrow.

Mr. TINNE: I desire again to ask for your Ruling and guidance, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the question which I put to you on the question of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Day) to the Secretary of State for War. That question appears to have been calculated' to arouse prejudice against a body which is now giving evidence before a Select Committee of this House, and I would ask whether you still hold that it was a proper thing to have done?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps I did not make it clear in my reply to the hon. Member in the first instance, but, obviously, it must be the case that it is improper to ask questions in regard to matters which are at the moment under inquiry by a Select Committee.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION).

Mr. WISE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the opening of shops and trading on Sunday; and for other purposes connected therewith.
The Bill that I have been asked to endeavour to introduce is one which has been brought before the House in previous Sessions. It is practically speaking, non-controversial; at any rate, it does not raise any of those great, questions on which opinion in this House is divided, and it is backed by Members of all parties in the House. It deals with a grievance felt by literally tens of thousands of small shopkeepers who are unable by themselves to remove it, and who look to this House for assistance in enabling them to get the reasonable facilities for rest and recreation enjoyed by practically all other classes of the community. I had many opportunities in many years' residence in East London to observe how, year by year, the amount of Sunday trading increased, and in my own constituency I have been astonished at the number of cases and the fervour with which, in the poorer streets, small shopkeepers have pressed me and pressed others to get the assistance of the House in dealing with this matter.
There have been numbers of Acts passed through this House dealing with the hours and conditions of shop assistants, requiring shops to be closed for a weekly half-holiday and limiting the hours in which shop assistants can be worked, but the case of the small shopkec per working his business by himself with the aid, possibly, only of members of his family, has practically been untouched. It is perfectly true that if they wished to close their shops, theoretically they can, but anyone familiar with the lives they live and the circumstances in which they live and work, knows how difficult in practice that very often is. Even when there is a majority in the district who are prepared to close their shops, a small, recalcitrant or misguided minority will prevent anything happening, and those who complain bitterly of the burden it is for seven days a week to sit in their shops and serve behind their counters, dare not run the risk of losing their customers to a rival in the next street or the same street, and they are too near the poverty line, their livelihood is too precarious, for them to take anything which seems like a risk. They want their rest, just as other people want rest, and for reasons which all of us respect and recognise in the case of working-class people and others.
It may surprise Members of the House that this question of Sunday closing has not been dealt with by this House by any Act since the reign of Charles II. The Lord's Day Observance Act required all shops to close for more or less religious reasons. As a matter of fact, in most parts of the country that Act is ignored, or else regularly broken. In Westminster, for example, 90 per cent. of the general shops are open on Sunday morning, and 40 per cent. of the fruiterers are open all day. In Plymouth, on an examination being made recently, 800 shops were found to be open, and in Birkenhead, nearly 600. In the city of Hull, where they seem to have tried to apply the Act, there are some hundreds of shops open, and the city gets a regular revenue by imposing the maximum fine permitted, which is 5s. each week for opening on the Sunday, and the tradesmen seem to regard it as a sort of licence duty. The Act, indeed, is obsolete and more or less ignored, and, because of this situation. all over the country the practice of opening shops on Sunday is increasing. Though most people concerned resent it, without the assistance of this House it is impossible to deal with it. It is an extraordinary thing that this country, which has set the example in the matter of hours of work to the rest of Europe, which has given France, for example, la semaine Anglaise, in which all shops, with certain exceptions, are closed on Sunday, is now rapidly falling behind the Continental practice.
This Bill proposes, in general, to prohibit Sunday trading, but it makes certain necessary and definite exceptions. It excepts the sale of refreshments for consumption on the premises in railway refreshment rooms and similar premises, and it excepts the sale of motor and aircraft accessories, the sale of medicine and the sale of newspapers, and it also gives power to local authorities, either on their own initiative or under pressure from the Home Office, to make exemption orders authorising certain classes of shops engaged mainly in the supply of foodstuffs and perishable goods, to open for a very limited number of hours on Sunday. Its machinery is elastic, so that the local authorities can adjust it to the circumstances of their particular districts. In some districts it is the custom for a
great deal of trading to be done by street markets and by hawkers. These are brought within the general provisions of the Bill, but sufficient elasticity is allowed for these special circumstances to be dealt with, without any hardship, and there will be provision also for the special circumstances of those of the Jewish faith who are accustomed to close on Saturday but to open on Sunday.
It is a Bill, which could be dealt with, without occupying very much of the time of the House, by the Committee which has already been dealing with a similar Bill for applying this provision to barbers, or the Committee which will deal on a more comprehensive basis with the hours of shop assistants. It fills a gap in our legislation, and will provide something which is urgently desired by a very large proportion of the tens of thousands of small shopkeepers who employ no shop assistants themselves. I have special pleasure in bringing it before the House, because I recall in my younger days with what a sigh of relief my own mother found it possible to shut the shop and get a clear day off on Sunday, and I also recollect what benefit it was to her when, under the Shop Hours Act 20 or 30 years ago, it became possible to coerce or persuade a small minority, and to get for herself and those employed by her a reasonable chance of ordinary recreation and rest by earlier closing. That was impossible without the assistance of this House. This Bill would afford the assistance of the House in the same manner to the tens of thousands of small shopkeepers who suffer under this similar disability.

Mr. HOFFMAN: It is with much regret that I must ask the House to refuse leave to introduce this Bill. It is not so innocuous a Measure as my hon. Friend would have the House believe. The Bill is one which is promoted by the Federation of Grocers' Associations of the United Kingdom, and it is the feeling of those whom I represent in this House, the shop assistants, that this Measure will, in fact, permit shop assistants to work on Sunday, or legalise the working of shop assistants on Sunday where it is illegal for them to work to-day. Though it is perfectly true that there is an increasing number of shops which are open on Sunday, and certainly
something ought to be done by this House to stop it, this is not the way to do it. It is at the moment illegal for shops to open on Sunday. If this Bill passes, it will mean that it will be legal for some shops to open on Sunday, and there is no protection whatsoever in the Bill for those who are working in those shops. There is no restriction of hours. There is no suggestion of restriction that they should not work longer, and it is because of that want of protection that we protest against this Measure.
We say that this is not the way to deal with the question. The way to deal with it is the way in which the hairdressers have dealt with it. This House has given a Second Reading to the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Bill. This morning that Bill passed unanimously through its Committee stage, and I hope sincerely that the House will agree to that Bill being passed into law. When it is, it will be illegal for hairdressers' saloons to be open on Sunday. The Bill under discussion is a very reactionary way of dealing with the situation. Right back in 1911 the Liberal Government of that day, in introducing a Measure for the closing of shops and the restriction of hours of work of assistants, had special Clauses compelling shops, with certain exceptions, to be closed on Sunday. This is going right away from the principle that was suggested in that time. Again, may I plead with the House, not for the first time—I pleaded in 1924—that you should not nibble in this way at such closing orders as exist to-day?
This House withdrew from the protection of compulsory early closing the girls who work in sweetshops, and now they have to work until half-past nine o'clock at night, and they have received nothing by way of compensation. Last year the House made it possible for tobacconists' shops to be withdrawn from compulsory closing legislation, and no compensation was offered to those whose hours of work were extended: and now it is the proposal of this Bill to allow shop assistants to work on Sunday and to give them no compensation at all. For these reasons I ask the House to refuse to legalise the opening of shops on Sunday, not merely for the sake of the small shopkeeper but for the sake
of those who work in the shops as well. In my humble opinion the right way of dealing with this matter is to compel all shops to close on Sunday.

Question put,

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the opening of shops and trading, on Sunday; and for other purposes connected therewith."

The House proceeded to e Division. There being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

BILLS REPORTED.

RAILWAYS (VALUATION FOR RATING) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday.

HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Stnding Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 16th May, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

NORTH CHESHIRE SEWERAGE BOARD BILL (CERTIFIED BILL).

Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LOPDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the
Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water.' [Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the rural district council of Epsom for the regulation and control of the development of building estates, and the laying out of new streets, and in regard to buildings, sewers, and drains; and for other purposes." [Epsom Rural District Council Bill [Lords].]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the rural district council of Guildford for the regulation and control of the development of building estates and the laying out of new streets and in regard to buildings, sewers, and drains; and for other purposes." [Guildford Rural District Council Bill [Lords].]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for authorising the Mid Kent Water Company to construct new waterworks and to raise additional capital; for extending their limits for the supply of water; for conferring further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes." [Mid Kent Water Bill [Lords.] (Certified Bill).]

RENFREWSHIRE UPPER DISTRICT (EASTWOOD AND MEARNS) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

EPSOM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

GUILDFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

MID KENT WATER BILL [Lords] (CERTIFIED BILL).

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th April], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I am very glad to have another opportunity of joining in a housing Debate, and the presence of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture reminds me that I had the privilege of endeavouring to help him in some of his schemes. I also had the pleasure of serving in a similar capacity with Lord Melchett, and I, at one time, served with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir T. Walters) as a member of the London Housing Board. Finally, I had the great pleasure and privilege of, I hope, helping in some small way my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), and therefore I feel that I have had some varied experiences in connection with housing affairs.
I wish, at once, to congratulate the Minister of Health on his speech yesterday, and on his lucid and explicit explanation of the Measure. I know that some hon. Members regard me as a critic of the Minister of Health, hut I want to pay him a tribute this afternoon. I believe that few Ministers have grown more in wisdom and understanding during the last nine or 10 months than the right hon. Gentleman. I was very gratified at his references yesterday and on other recent occasions to the work of his predecessor in office. It was not always so, but I am glad that at last the right hon. Gentleman recognises that this country during the last five years has had, to use his own words, a very creditable record, and that we have built 1,500,000 houses.
That tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, though rather belated, nevertheless comes with special satisfaction to me at this time. The views of the Minister have certainly improved, in my opinion, on many of the housing matters which arise in connection with this Bill. I remember the
days when the right hon. Gentleman. referred to the present standard of housing accommodation in this country as "boxes for the people." I am glad to note that to-day he is perfectly satisfied with the standard which exists and that he has ignored the demand of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, who recently asked him for a much higher standard. In Let, I think one of his best efforts was when he explained to the House the superiority of the standard of housing in this country, as compared with that, for instance, of Vienna, for which some hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to have an affection. I am also glad to note that in this Measure he is introducing a proposal for small houses for aged people, and I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, when she replies, will explain whether it is possible for that principle to be extended to middle-aged couples and others, who would, I think, be equally entitled. If we once concede the principle that aged people should have small houses, that principle can easily be extended—if it is desired to do so—to other people who are similarly circumstanced.
Then I am glad to think ti at the right hon. Gentleman has brushed to one side that proposal which used to come from many quarters of the House, and which was made occasionally by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that the first thing to be done in bringing about a great housing reform, was to have a great housing survey. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman has firmly refused to foster that idea. He probably thinks, with a good many of us who have resisted this proposal in days gone by, that the local authorities of the country are much better employed in building houses.
I am also glad to note that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Rural Housing Act from operating in those places where the local authorities desire to put it in force. I remember the days when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, before he knew as, much as he knows now, referred to that, Measure as "a great robbery from the public funds," but that Act apparently is to be permitted to continue its nefarious career. But I think that one of the most illuminating statements made by the right
hon. Gentleman—again this is a matter which remains untouched in this Bill—was the explanation which he gave recently to the House as to the respective merits of building by direct labour and building by contract. I know that before he became Minister of Health the right hon. Gentleman thought that there was something to be gained, from the financial point of view, in respect of houses built by direct labour. I am glad to see from recent statements to the House that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to correct that impression.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): No.

Sir K. WOOD: If any hon. Member wants to refer to the Minister's statement, it will be found that on 6th February the right hon. Gentleman was able to show by figures which he gave for 1927, 1928 and 1929 as regards both parlour and non-parlour houses, that the houses built by direct labour were considerably more costly than those built by contract. The last tribute which I desire to pay to the Minister is this. In connection with housing finance, which is, of course, a very important element in this scheme, he no longer thinks that "whether the country can afford a thing depends on how much the country wants it, "because I notice that the other day he said that, on the one hand, he had to coax money out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and on the other hand he had to try to satisfy the demands of the local authorities. I welcome all these new views of the Minister of Health and I am glad indeed that he has found salvation in respect of many of these questions.
My chief criticism of this Measure is largely a financial criticism. I notice that in these proposals the Government again come forward with a new and increased subsidy. True, it is dressed in a new form; but I think my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture will agree with me when I say that these increased subsidies have been the rocks on which most of these housing schemes have foundered. In this case, if we take the grant of 45s. per person rehoused, on an average of five persons per house, the amount of the increased subsidy will be £11 5s. instead of what we call the Wheatley subsidy of £7 10s.
I notice that it was said constantly in the course of yesterday's Debate that this was the first time that proposals had been presented to this House to enable poor persons to obtain houses at rents which they could afford to pay. That statement, of course, is not doing justice to the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). I remember very well when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston brought in his proposals, and the main object of those proposals was that the rents should be such as the poorer paid members of the community could afford to pay. There is a great similarity between his scheme and the present scheme. I remember that, in those days, the present Prime Minister said of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. that they were probably the biggest piece of constructive organisation that had ever been attempted; and I notice that the Minister of Health, outside this House, has said that this is the biggest Housing Bill of modern times.
I have often thought that the most sensible observation that was made on the Wheatley Act was made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is well that honour should be paid to him in this connection, because he turned out to be a true prophet. Writing at the time when the right hon. Member for Shettleston introduced his housing proposals, he said:
The housing scheme of the Government is based upon the assumption that prices will remain at their present levels If they rise and the cost of houses is thereby increased, the financial basis of the scheme will be upset, and it will probably collapse, with terrible consequences.
What in fact did happen? Under the Wheatley Act the subsidy was increased to £160, or more than double the subsidy that was given under the Act of my right hon. Friend, and the average price per house went up from £386 in one month by £52; in October of that year it was £451, and it remained at that, as I consider, excessive cost until December, 1926. A reduction in the subsidy then followed, initiated by my right hon. Friend, and at that moment prices began to fall, until they dropped to £399. No wonder that the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. D. Simon), who, I believe.
is Chairman of the Liberal Housing Committee, said at that time:
Mr. Wheatley's subsidy was a vicious thing,
and that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said:
The result of the scheme had been to raise the cost of house building.
In the result, as we all know, the rents of what we call the Wheatley houses, notwithstanding the very considerable increase in the subsidy, are no lower at this moment than the rents of what we call the Chamberlain houses. [Interruption.] I invite anybody who doubts that statement to put a question next week to the Minister of Health in an endeavour to elicit some facts on that aspect of the matter. With that experience before us, what is going to be the position in connection with this scheme, if history repeats itself, as it has so constantly done in connection with housing matters? Who is going to get the benefit of this increased subsidy? The House is, in this Bill, reversing the policy of my right hon. Friend and reverting to what I call the Wheatley policy, and it is indeed a very vital question, because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in relation to the Wheatley scheme, so I will say in relation to this scheme, that it
is based upon the assumption that prices will remain at their present level. If they rise and the cost of houses is thereby increased, the financial basis of the scheme will be upset, and it will probably collapse, with terrible consequences.
Are the Government satisfied that even the present cost of houses is reasonable? The right hon. Gentleman who spoke yesterday from the Liberal benches, who has had great practical experience, and who has made a considerable contribution to the housing problem in this country, said only the other day—I wish he had repeated it yesterday—that he did not believe in any form of State subsidy, and that he saw no reason why workmen's houses built for men receiving fair wages should not be let at a rent within their power to pay. He added this:
The cost of building is still ridiculously high.
That may be said to be simply an opinion of an individual Member of this House, however eminent, but that opinion is very widely shared. Take two authorita-
tive organs of very different views indeed. I observed, only a few weeks ago, in the Commercial Review of the "Times," that they said:
The building industry was less active, and may experience a grave depression unless costs are reduced, for the increase in building prices over 1914 is absurdly out of proportion to the general increase in prices.
Take the views also of the official organ of the Labour party, the "Daily Herald." They said, on Tuesday, 11th March, in a leading article in relation to this Bill:
Slum clearance is one of the most urgent tasks any Government could tackle … There is, however, one aspect of the matter on which the public, which has to find the money, has a right to assurance; that is, that steps will be taken to guarantee that it shall not be exploited. Mr. Greenwood intends, we believe, to go a long way to prevent profiteering in the land involved …. It is equally important to prevent profiteering in regard to the buildings themselves.
In an article which appeared on the same day from their Industrial Correspondent, this was said:
Low rent is essential for the people who are to be transferred, but this is declared to be impossible unless prices fall. Bricks cost to-day as much as in 1924, and other materials are also said to be unduly high, with a danger of going higher …. Improvements in manufacture have been widely introduced, but practically no benefit of them has been pawed on to the customer. When this is put to the manufacturers, however, they shelter behind a pledge given to them by Mr. Wheatley as Minister of Health in 1924. That pledge dealt with the 15 years' programme laid down in the Act, and in a general way assured the manufacturer of the maintenance of the 1924 standards or their equivalent. The manufacturers interpret that to mean that they are entitled to pocket the benefits of reorganisation, amalgamations, improved machinery, and so on.
The article, which I am not able to read in full, but which is well worth perusal, also says:
It is notorious that leading firms are making big profits, and while there is general anxiety to patronise British firms, they may find that patronage stopped unless they are content with moderate returns.
That is from the official organ of the Labour party. What is the position? The progressive reduction in the cost of house building which had been going steadily on under the responsibility and guidance of my right hon. Friend has been stopped by the Government, and as
far as I can see under this Bill nothing is being proposed by the Government not only to bring about a reduction in building costs, but to take any step to prevent a rise such as we have seen in the past has always occurred when the subsidy has been increased in the way in which it is being increased in this Bill. It is a serious matter for the slum dweller, because if he is to get 2s. reduction in rent, which is all that the right hon. Gentleman apparently is promising under this Bill, it all depends, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the level of building costs is going to remain as it is at present.
But another thing may equally follow. It is not only a question of what is going to happen in regard to the cost of new houses, but in regard to the position of house-building generally under the 1924 Act, and I am bound to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman and to his colleagues: Where does the Socialist party stand in this connection? I will say this for the right hon. Member for Shettleston, taking the view that he did, that he accompanied his proposals by what was called, I think, a Building Materials Bill, of which the late Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Hastings, a good authority on Socialism, said that it
laid down real Socialism for the first time in this country.
There are no such proposals contained in this Bill. There is not even a section which might have been added incorporating the proposals of the right hon. Member for Shettleston, and I am the more surprised that nothing is being done in this connection by the party opposite, because after their experience of what has happened since 1924, and after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself pointed out as the real basis upon which the proposals depended, when they went to the country at the last General Election they put, not in "Labour and the Nation," which one may regard as generally discarded by hon. Members opposite, but in their election manifesto itself:
The Labour party …. would take steps to prevent the profiteering in food and in building materials.
One would have thought that if that was seriously intended, after nine months' deliberation upon these proposals by the right hon. Gentleman—because he has taken nine or 10 months to bring them in
—we should have had some proposals of the nature of those of the right hon. Member for Shettleston, or some explanation from the Government as to how they propose to deal with this situation and what steps they propose to take against a repetition of what has so constantly happened in the housing history of this country. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying, "Well, if this thing happens again, I shall at once bring in the Building Materials Bill of the right hon. Member for Shettleston. If prices go up £50 or £100, I shall deal with these scoundrels." That would be too late. Everybody knows that if they brought in a Bill of this kind, it would take a considerable time, and even if it was on the Statute Book, it would be much too late; building prices would have risen, and there would be no effectual remedy to deal with the situation. Therefore, I think we are entitled to an explanation from the Government—and so are their followers, because I take it that every one of them advocated these proposals at the last General Election—as to where the Government stand upon what may be a very serious situation.
It is accurate to say if building prices rise by £100 per house—and that has happened before—the whole of the financial structure of this Bill will have gone. There is little lower rents for the slum dwellers of the country even if they go up—50, and the financial basis of these proposals will, I am afraid, be seriously disturbed. I hope that the Government will give us some further explanation of the exact proposals for the actual administration of this scheme in regard to rents. It is a very novel proposal in some respects and a difficult one, and I am afraid that in many oases it will prove to be unjust to have differential rents for houses administered by local authorities. As I understand it, it will be possible under this scheme to have on the housing estate of a local authority, two tenants occupying exactly the same type of house, and one paying a considerably higher rent than the other. Preference is going to be given to people who at present live in what are called slums.
We desire that everything that is humanly possible should be done to improve their conditions, but I want to put this to hon. Members, especially to those wtho at the first view of this Bill may be
rather deceived in its proposals: Is this going to be the position, that you wili find a labourer, prdbably from the financial point of view in as bad or even a worse position than a man who lives in the slums, paying a higher rent than the man who has been removed from the slums into a new house? I cannot conceive a more unjust proposal than that.
If the Government really believe—and this Bill must mean that they do believe it—that the payment of a higher subsidy can bring about lower rents, why has not the original Wheatley subsidy been restored? I remember very well that when the right hon. Gentleman introduced what he called the stop-gap housing Measure, he did not restore the Wheatley subsidy in its entirety. He restored only the reduced Wheatley subsidy, and, when he was asked why he had not restored the complete subsidy, he "This is only a stop-gap Measure; please wait for my final and bigger proposals." If it is the belief of the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters that lower rents can be achieved by increased subsidies, why has he not restored the complete Wheatley subsidy, in order by that means to get lower rents not only for the people who live in the slums, but also for the people who are equally entitled from their social and financial position to receive consideration from the State, namely, the labourer, and very many other people who are in just as bad a financial position as the dweller in the slums?
I await further information about how these proposals are going to work, because we have had no explanation as to the exact meaning and terms of Clause 23. I can conceive the grossest injustice arising from these proposals, and I want to know what answer is going to be given when the labourer, who has had great difficulty, and who is earning, perhaps—like the labourers are in my constituency by the action of the Government—£2 3s. 10d. a week says, "I am just as much entitled to go into a house with a lower rent as my friend who comes from the slums. I do not grudge him a better house, but why are not my wife and family entitled as much as he is to receive that increased accommodation and better facilities? "I want to know what answer will be given.
The Government are embarking on a very perilous course indeed whet they adopt the principle of differential rents. Are they going from time to time to inquire from a man what his income and circumstances are? The Government will place a man in one of these new houses and say that he is entitled to pay this lower rent. Are they going to send somebody down every month, some inspector, to ask the very questions which we were told in the discussions on the Widows' Pensions Act it was an instil: to put to people in this country? Are the Government going to ask him what his means are? How will this thing work? I am afraid that the more it is examined, the more the difficulties will present themselves. It is true that the Government are throwing the onus in this matter, all the difficulties and dangers, upon the local authorities. It is art easy way to say, "It is true there may be this trouble; let the local authorities get on with the job, and do what they can with it." I think that that is a very unfair burden to place upon the local authorities, and I have the greatest apprehension as to what will happen in various localities in regard to these proposals.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has realised the necessity of doing, in the interests of better housing and the housing of the poorer people, something with reference to the Rent Restrictions Act. It is quite a mistake to think that, if they amend the Rent Restrictions Act, they will only amend it in favour of the so-called rich man or the rich landlord. The right hon. Gentleman has had 10 months to consider the matter, and some proposals might have been incorporated in this Bill to deal with that Act. I read a tragic account of an inquest held a few weeks ago into a death in an overcrowded Finsbury tenement. It was a distressing case, which brought to one's mind the necessity of something being done, and the difficulties of many owners of property. The newspaper account said:
Dr. Waldo, at the City Coroner's Court yesterday, resumed his inquest on the body of a child, aged one year and eight months. the son of Mrs. N. The mother had previously said that a fire occurred when she was out in a room which she occupied with her three infants, and two other children were also burnt. She had no fireguard as she could not afford one. The inquiry had
been adjourned in order that the jury might inspect the tenements, which they did yesterday morning. Dr. Waldo
—a very well-known and esteemed coroner in London—
said that the tenement comprised six small rooms, and was occupied by 23 men, women and children. One of the tenements complained of rats.
Mr. S. the Secretary of the Company
said that the company were most unwilling landlords of the property when the fire occurred. Owing to the Rent Restrictions Act they could not get rid of the tenants. They acquired the site several years ago with the intention of pulling down the houses and erecting warehouses and garages, and they were prepared to proceed with the scheme immediately they could empty the existing tenements.
Dr. Waldo put this question, which naturally arises in the minds of everybody:
Where are these poor people to go? I suppose they will go and crowd the next district.
Mr. S.
said that he understood the Housing Committee of the London County Council had offered to provide alternative aaccommodation for the families in the tenements provided his company paid £100 per family. As there were 47 families, the company would have to pay £4,700. He explained that out of £600 a year which his company received in rents, they spent something like £500 in repairs, rates and taxes, and they also paid £400 a year ground rent. Dr. Waldo said that he could well understand that the company were unwilling landlords.
That gives a striking illustration of the difficulties and the conditions. We are unhappily familiar with the conditions, and we want to find a remedy. There is no doubt that many aspects of the Rent Restrictions Act are unduly interfering with new housing. I was surprised at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and his failure to deal with what we call Section 46, which undoubtedly has held up many slum clearances. Again and again, when it was my privilege to serve under my right hon. Friend, cases were brought to my attention where slum clearance was being held up by the local authorities because of the injustice of the operation of this Section.
I hope that the spokesman of the Government who may reply will tell me why it is wrong to give compensation under the English Bill, and yet under the Scottish Bill, where similar proposals are being made, compensation of
a considerable character amounting to several thousands of pounds a year, is to be permitted. The principle of compensation and financial provision is being adopted under the Scottish proposal, and yet we are told that it is wrong and wicked to do the same thing in this country. Even the proposal which has been made, which permits a local authority to give some sort of compensation to a dispossessed tenant for the goodwill of his business and the like, is a thoroughly unfair and unsatisfactory proposal.
5.0 p.m.
There is the case of the small man with a small business, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass), who spoke yesterday, will find on inquiry at Bristol cases of this kind. It is true that such a man has only made small earnings week by week in some bad slum area, but his place is not in bad repair, and he has to go. That man is in a most serious position and in a number of cases local authorities have said "No, sooner than do an act of injustice of that kind we will not go on with slum clearance." What does the right hon. Gentleman pro-[...] pose? One would nave thought that some proposal would have been made that the man could, as a right, be entitled to claim compensation on some fixed principle. But under the proposals of this Bill that unfortunate man is left at the mercy of the local authorities who may or may not put this provision into operation. If they do, then the man must go cap in hand to the local authority and say "Please give me something for my business." If they say "Yes, here is £10," and he replies that that is not fair, then the local authority can say, "Take it or leave it." The man has no right to any arbitration and is entirely in the hands of the local authority. That is unfair.
Both for the poor tenant and for the landlord who has kept a decent house there should be a provision, by right, of some sort of reasonable compensation. The Bill tries to do nothing for the man who, at any rate, has behaved decently in connection with his property in the slums—and that there are slums one may see even within a short distance of this House. To such owners the Government say, "There is no provision for you," and to the tenant of a business they say,
"We will put you in the hands of the local authority." I repeat, that is not a fair way of dealing with this problem. I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not, as he promised two or three months ago, brought forward proposals in connection with regional and town planning. There has been ample time for him to complete his plans. He has had five years in Opposition and nine or 10 months in office. There will be regret up and down the country when it is learned that he has not taken this step.
I hope that the House will not think that I have been unduly critical of these proposals. If the right hon. Gentleman can make this scheme work we shall be gratified. We will hope that prices will not rise. We shall have to wait and see if his anticipations prove correct. The success of the Bill will depend, in the first place, on whether local authorities are willing to operate it. It is of no use putting in default Clauses. These Clauses are just so much waste paper. The success of the Measure will depend on the willing assistance of the local authority and great responsibilities and difficulties are being placed upon them. In the second place. the success of the Bill will depend on whether building prices are going to remain as they are. The right hon. Gentleman has deliberately gone away from his own proposals in not providing means for dealing with profiteering. He has rejected the policy of the Conservative party, which bought about a reduction in building costs. He has rejected his own policy as announced at the last General Election, and we shall have to see whether, in the face of all these difficulties, this scheme will prove to be that great housing effort which has been so much heralded up and down the country. If he does succeed, there will be general satisfaction, for no one desires to see any of the distressing conditions that exist to-day continued if they can be removed. I must say, however, that I look with particular apprehension upon some of the proposals in this Measure.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has only himself to blame if certain Members do not take his remarks too seriously. He devoted a considerable portion of his speech, as he usually does, to assuring
us that rising subsidies and rising prices go together, and that if you want prices to fall you should abolish the subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that, when he and his colleagues revised the subsidy on the last occasion, they allowed it to remain higher in Scotland than in England. It is notorious that the housing conditions in Scotland are worse than they arc in England. Prices are higher in Scotland than they are in England. One would have expected therefore that this glorious remedy of abolishing the subsidy and reducing the prices of building materials would have been applied to Scotland. But it is the other way round. When the subsidy was reduced, the prices went higher. In view of that practice, how are we to treat seriously the speech of the right hon. Gentleman?
Then he laments, I suppose quite seriously, the absence of any proposals in this Bill for dealing with profiteering in building materials. He admits profiteering goes on, but not a word of condemnation falls from his lips. He has no blame to lay on those responsible for profiteering. I can remember well, when I brought in the Bill to deal with profiteering in building materials, that I did not have the support of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that, if I were in the proud position to put that Bill before the House to-day, I would still have the same stern, relentless opposition to what would be called interference with the right of private enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the benefits that might have accrued if the Government had abolished the Rent Restrictions Act.

Sir K. WOOD: Amend it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, in order to enable owners of houses to put up rents. That is what the right hon. Gentleman really means by amending. It does not mean that the Act should be amended to allow landlords to reduce rents. They do not require legislation to do that. Landlords are perfectly free in that respect. If the tenants were as free to reduce rents we should soon have wholesale reductions. The right hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of the profiteer, says that because there has been a war, because this nation has been plunged into the payment of
£7,000,000,000 or £8,000,000,000, these landlords ought to be en titled to charge
more to-day than would have been charged if there had not been any war. Yet he asks us to treat him seriously when he says that he wants to help the Government. He spoke about the terrible consequences that would follow the passing of the 1924 Act. At least, 300,000 houses for letting purposes are being erected in this country as a result of that Act. Surely, the people who require to rent houses are the people who deserve national assistance rather than those who can afford to buy; and, if that is one of the terrible consequences of the Act of 1924, then, with pride, I can claim that I have not been the least benefactor of the people of this country.
Yesterday the Minister for Health, in his opening remarks, said he wanted to approach this question in a non-party spirit. When I hear gentlemen on the other side of the House approach questions in a non-party spirit, I am always suspicious. Such Members are in the same position as the man outside, who says, "I have no politics." If you go into the history of that man's public actions, you will find that he has been a crusted Tory from the first day on which he could express himself up to that moment. Never by any accident has that man, who has no politics voted for a Labour or a Socialist candidate. As an old friend outside says, "When the Tories have nothing to fear, the workers have nothing to cheer."
When I heard the right hon. Gentleman say, "There is no sound reason here for Conservative Members of this House opposing this Measure," I immediately, if my Friends on the Front Bench will forgive me, grew suspicious of the value of the Measure, because it is utterly impossible to dissociate parties and class from a consideration of the problems of the slum. These slum problems have their roots down in the class distinctions of this country. Slum houses are only aged working-class houses, and you are not reasonably entitled to expect that when the local authorities make their return of these clearances and improvements, and have put the scheme into operation, you will have solved the slum problem. We shall only be at the beginning, because next year, and the following year, and the year after that, will come tumbling into
slumdom the mature working-class houses of to-day. The improvement area of one year will be the clearance area of another year.
Slumdom is inherent in the working-class dwellings of this country. The narrow streets, the damp condition of the houses, the general sanitary defects of those dwellings, are all a standing evidence that in the industrial development of this country we have come through an age of barbarism. We cannot leave out of account the fact that nearly every industrial centre in this oountry has its tens and hundreds of thousands of houses that are potential slums. It is no use approaching this question as if there were a given number of slums and that when we had dealt with them the problem was solved and we could turn to the next problem. It is a recurring factor and it will go on as long as we set aside for a particular section of the community an inferior quality of housing accommodation.
To say that we ought to approach this problem in a non-party and non-class spirit is—I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is expressing it too strongly when he says it is quite nonsensical. I must confess that I cannot soar to those dizzy heights of tolerance that would enable one to free himself from party bias and class passions on an occasion like this. Perhaps it is due to the fact that I got my lessons in slum life at my mother's knee, and perhaps if those on the other side of the House, particularly, and some on this side as well, had become acquainted with the slum problem in the slums, we should hear very little about the non-party and non-class character of the problem with which we have to deal.
I wish the Government had made an estimate of how many houses are likely one day to be slums, because until we know that we shall not know the magnitude of the problem. It is easy to give us an estimate of the present number of slums, and probably easy to give us an estimate of how many slums we shall have during the next 10 years, but it would be useful information if we could have an estimate of the total number of slums that will have to be dealt with before slumdom is eradicated from the path of the working class population.
Having said that, I will come to the Bill, but more with friendly than with hostile criticism. I am not going to blame the Minister of Health for not having introduced a Measure that would entirely satisfy me. I am afraid I am getting accustomed to having to submit to short rations of my Socialism from the present Government, and I should be no more severe in criticising my old colleague than I should be in criticising one of another Department; but I must confess that after reading the Bill and listening most carefully to the Minister's very lucid explanation of it that there are points about it which I still fail completely to understand. It may seem a simple question to ask, and it may indicate my inability to read a Measure, but I would like to know under which Clause or part of the Bill houses are to be built.
After all, it is a Housing Bill, and one of the first things we should know is what provision is being made for the building of houses. I have looked through the Bill as carefully as one can in a single reading—which was all that my time would allow me to give to it—and I am yet asking myself under which Clause the houses are to be built. I am not asking that question in any criticism of the drafting of the Bill, but for this purpose. Whenever we pass a Measure giving a subsidy to working-class dwellings, we are accustomed to lay down certain conditions attaching to the receipt of the subsidy. For instance, under the Act of 1924 certain minimum dimensions were specified, and no subsidy would be paid for a smaller house. Again, I think, there cannot be more than 12 houses to the acre, because we wanted to guard ourselves against density of population.
When this Bill goes into Committee and has, I hope, the sympathetic consideration of Members in all parts of the House, I am anxious that it shall be realised that we are dealing with a class of people who are entitled to receive from Parliament the utmost protection which it can bestow. I do not want to leave it in the hands of a local authority—if such a local authority exists in this country—to take public money and to use it in a way that prevents even a shilling of it going into the pockets
of the workers for whom it is intended. I want to tie local authorities down to the size of the house, to the number of houses per acre, to the conditions of letting, and to give all the other protections it is possible for the worker to get; but I cannot do this until I know under which Clause the houses are to be built, and I press my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to give me that information at their earliest convenience
Coming to the Bill, and taking Clause 1, I find that before an area. can he declared a clearance area the local authority must satisfy itself that, alternative accommodation exists for the people who are to be displaced; but there is nothing in that about the building of houses. To begin with, what is alternatfve accommodation? No standard of alternative accommodation has been laid down by this House. All that is asked is that a local authority is to satisfy itself that that alternative accommodation, wherever it may be, is in existence, or that they will be able to provide it. If I were a lawyer I should say that that does not necessarily mean that they will have to build houses.
Somehow or other, when we are dealing with the slum dweller we always deal with him as if he were an inferior type of humanity. Yesterday afternoon the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) revealed that mentality in the course of his speech. He said it was very important, if we were to achieve success with the Bill, to introduce "an atmosphere" into the new building scheme, and that we should have the people properly looked after. In other words, we are to treat them as we treat the Crown Colonies, as a section of humanity not fit for self-government, but to be taken by their superiors and coaxed and led to that higher plane where they may be allowed to run loose for themselves. That mentality governs this House, even though it may be subconscious, and therefore I ask the House to look carefully at every line and every word that deals with the provision of alternative accommodation for the working class. In Clause 1 there is nothing to indicate that the local authorities must build houses. Again we return to this, that the measure of progress from slumdom is the number of new houses we build.
I am left quite untouched by the expectations of the Government in regard to what are called their improvement areas. I have served for a dozen years with a large local authority and I know that this Measure is not a volume of working-class emancipation. It is a collection of existing law, with certain modifications, to the extent, probably, of four-fifths or nine-tenths. There are hon. Members who think that every line of this Measure takes our people nearer to the promised land. With all that is said about "declaring clearance areas" and "steps to be taken," when we come to put it into operation, and when we have the other class protected by the type of mind represented by the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House, it will be fought line by line and word by word. I have known us to be two years in the City of Glasgow trying to get a house closed that was declared by the medical officer of health to be unfit for human habitation. The same considerations apply to an improvement scheme. We have been working on those lines for years and years in this country and making little progress. Glasgow did it extensively under an Act of Parliament that went through this House in 1866, taking the old houses and scraping them and painting them and labelling them and putting on them, "so many animals there and so many animals here."
We have been doing that for half-a-century, but still we have the problem of slumdom, and we shall have it after this Bill has become an Act of Parliament, because as long as we try to patch things up we are bound to fail. First of all, we must get it out of our minds that we are dealing with animals. We are dealing with human beings, we are dealing with people with souls, with people who have to be appealed to, whose character is moulded by environment, just as our own characters are moulded by environment, and can we think that with putty and paint and labels and caretakers we are going to get that superior British race which we all want to see? That is all nonsense.
The point I wish to emphasise is that neither under Clause 1, which deals with clearance areas, nor under Clause 2 is any provision made for the building of houses. The only Clauses which deal
with housing are Clauses 23 and 24, but there is very little in those two Clauses to indicate that houses will be built under this Act. Obviously, the houses have to be built, if they are not built under this Act, under the Act of 1924. If that is so, I think we should know now, because it makes a tremendous difference, for the result will be that you will be building under one Act and letting under another. The financial basis of the 1924 Act is vastly different from the financial basis of the 1923 Act. Apart from the question of which subsidy you will be offering, there will be considerable trouble to the local authorities if they are to have all this confusion from the outset.
I come to the question of the rents, and the procedure for fixing rents, which seems to me very complicated. Anything which gives trouble to the local authorities is bound to impede the operation of this Bill. In fixing the rent the local authority has to take the whole aggregate rents of the scheme into account. I want to draw the attention of the House to what, I consider, is rather a, curious mixture. The grant may be any sum. Take a case in which you may have four persons living in one house, two being consumptives. You will require different rooms for the phthisis cases, and it is one of the conditions of this legislation that we shall bring the local authority and the medical authority into closer co-operation, and the medical officer will be able to prescribe medicine in future for poor phthisis cases. The total amount of the subsidy in that case would be £9. Let me take another instance where there are three persons. In that case, the total would be £6 15s. If you take the case of parents with six children the sum would be eight times £2 5s., or £18 a year as a subsidy. You have to deduct the subsidy from the aggregate rent, and also a sum equal to £3 15s. per house, which has to be recovered from the rates.
There are two principles in operation in fixing the amount of the subsidy. So far as it is a subsidy from the State it is per person, and, when it is a subsidy from the rates, it is per house. Here, again, you are bound to have a considerable amount of confusion when you come to fix the rents. I would like to ask how long the reduced rents are to be in operation. Suppose that you take out of
the slums next year a family consisting of parents with six children. In that case, you get a subsidy of £18 a year on a house for 40 years, and, if you capitalise that, it comes to a sum round about £720. You get that sum from the State in that particular instance. Suppose that after a few years the man leaves the house and the children disappear. In that case, the subsidy goes on for 40 years and the rent for 60 years. What will happen in a case like that? Does the hereditary principle apply to any extent? Suppose that you have a family of four or five, and some of them get married and leave the house, and the eldest son decides to keep on the house. Hon. Members know quite well that you cannot put that son out of the house, because he will be the inheritor of a slum house under the Act of 1930. As that man walks up and down the street—he may be a man earning double the wages of people who do not live in subsidised houses—people may ask how he got possession of the house, and his only reply would be, "My dear Sir, I am the grandson of a slum dweller."
I want to do everything that is humanly desirable for the slum dweller, but I do not want to confer privileges upon him merely because he lives in the slums, and I am not going to say that a man living in the slums is entitled to more consideration than the man who keeps his family out of the slums. I do not want to be harsh, but a close investigation would show that in many cases the people living in slums are in receipt of as good wages as those living outside the slums. I do not wish to go to the other extreme, and I do not say that people should be rewarded for living in slums. We should not reward them or punish them for living in slums, but we ought to help them out of the slums.
Under this Bill you are giving subsidies which will extend over 40 years, but who can foresee the future of the children living in the slums over a period of 40 years? Had I continued to live under the conditions of my early life I should have been entitled to the benefits of this Bill, because my people lived in a slum, and under this Bill a grateful country would have given me the benefits of the reduced rents that are only to be given to slum dwellers. I do not think it is
a wise thing to reward people for living in lowly conditions. I want to know whether the rents are to be revised annually. I notice that the State grant has to be revised annually or pren-nially but is the rent to be revised every year?
The conditions under which the inhabitants live may have vasty changed during those years, and I want to know who are to have these houses as time goes on. I suppose that the houses will be built under the Act of 1924 by the local authorities. After they have been built, is the slum-dweller to have priority in these houses? There is another section of the working class who wculd like to have a voice in this matter. It seems to me that the slum-dwellers are to get all the houses, and the other people will not get them until they pass through the slums. In other words, on der this Bill, we are laying down that, in order to get a house, you must, first of all, pass through the slums. I do not think that the slum dweller should have priority. I want the slum dwellers to be provided for generously, but I do not want other sections of the working class to be penalised in the process of putting the slum-dwellers into more healthy surroundings.
For these reasons, I sincerely hope that the Government will give very close attention to the contents of this Bill. I hope they will welcome examination and criticism of this Measure until the last line of it has left the House. I hope that, as far as possible, the Government will leave the decisions upon this Bill to a free vote of the House. If this is not a party question, then the party Whips should not dictate the policy. I think, with the spirit that prevails in the House on this question, we shall be able to mould this Bill into a Measure that will be a really substantial contribution for clearing out those plague spots of this country which we all so very much deplore.

Mr. E. D. SIMON: I think that the most extraordinary feature of this Debate has been, in the first place, the really extraordinary amount of agreement on all sides of the House, agreement as to the size of the effort being: made in this country; and, secondly, the complete failure of that gigantic effort to do anything whatever to help those who live in the slums. I think, also, that there is almost complete agreement that the
worst feature of the slums to-day is not the quality of the houses, but the overcrowding, and that the only remedy is the building of a large number of new houses at rents which the slum dwellers can afford to pay. There would not have been complete agreement on these points a short time ago, but now we are all agreed as to what we want to do. although not as to how me want to do it. Perhaps the most extraordinary point in regard to agreement is that, so far as I have heard, not one Member of the House has raised the question of the cost which will fall on the Exchequer. No one has protested that the working of the Bill is going to be expensive, and that shows that in all quarters of the House we are going to tackle this problem in a candid manner.
We have, under the various Bills, including that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), built 1,500,000 houses, but we have failed to deal with the people with whom we want to deal, and with whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston said he was going to deal in his Bill of 1924. The reason for that, again, is pretty well agreed. It is because all the houses, including those built under the 1924 Act, have been too expensive for these people to be able to pay the rents. In the case of most of them the rent is from 12s. to 20s. a week. Although among the slum dwellers are included a good many people who can pay such rents, the bulk of them, and especially those with children, cannot pay more than from 7s. to 10s. gross rent, and we have not built houses of that kind under the right hon. Gentleman's Bill.
We have been subsidising the wrong people. I will give one instance. I visited a Midland town the other day, and saw there a house built under the Wheatley Act—a very comfortable parlour house, in which were living a foreman and his wife and two adult children. The sum of £8 was coming into that house every week, and they were receiving a subsidy of something over 4s. a week. Then I went to a condemned area in the same town, and I found there a woman living in a house of the kind that is usual in slums, although it had three bedrooms. Her husband was a railwayman earning 53s. a week, and two
of the children were earning 26s. a week together, so that nearly £4 a week was coming into the house. There were nine children, or, in other words, a family of 11. The children were well cared for and, on the whole, fairly healthy. The wife was one of those mothers who can bring off a wonderful job of that sort. These people were living in a, slum at a rent of 5s. 6d., with no subsidy of any sort, but on the contrary, were paying a little extra on their rates in order to subsidise the other people who were living in Wheatley houses.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) talked about the hypothetical case under this new Bill where complete equality of treatment in every case would not be obtained, but I should like to know whether he or anyone else can suggest a worse case of inequality and unfairness than the one which I have just mentioned. We have been subsidising the wrong people, and I think that the test of this new Bill or of any Bill is a double one. In the first place, is it going to enable us to build large numbers of houses at rents of from 7s. to 10s.; and, secondly, is it going to enable or induce the local authorities to get the people who really need help into those houses?
Of course, local authorities—I myself have been a member of one for many years—always pass resolutions saying that they will give preference to large families, and then, in practice, they do not do anything of the sort. I have made inquiries in a number of towns, and I have found that generally speaking the average number per family in municipal
houses is about 4½ persons. I regret to say that in Manchester, where we have built 12,000 houses, the average size of the family is 3.9 persons, or much below the average size over the whole country.
Turning to what the voluntary societies have done, there is a large number of voluntary societies all over the country, building, not many houses, because they cannot afford it, but from 20 to 100 houses. People are very anxious to buy these houses, and that shows what can be done in giving the maximum relief to slum conditions. I have made inquiries of about 10 of these societies, and I find that the size of the families in their houses varies from six up to about eight,
or, in other words, while the average in municipal houses is about 4½ in these voluntary houses, which are let at rather lower rents, the average is about 6½. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the real problem of the slums is to get these 2,000,000 people out of the alums and into decent houses, and one of the reasons why the municipalities have failed is that they are not taking the larger families, but only the small ones. That, of course, is partly, and indeed mainly, because the larger families cannot afford the rents. I think it is true to say that every employed working man in an urban area, when he has no children and no dependants, can afford the rent of a decent house. The whole trouble is when there are two, three or more children. No unskilled worker in the country with three or more childen, and with a wage of 60s. or less, can afford to-day the rent of a Wheatley or any other new house. That is the problem of the slums—how to get these large families, the poorer large families, out of the slums into decent houses; and it is by its success in solving that problem that this Bill will in the long run be judged.
So far there is, as I have said, agreement on almost everything, but when we come to the remedy we find a sharp division into two camps, the one represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich, and the other, I think, broadly, by all progressive thought in the country. [Interruption.] The Conservative policy is perfectly clear. It is a policy of laissez faire, of leaving things alone, of leaving them to private enterprise, when prices will come down and private enterprise will then provide the houses that are necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich, who is perhaps the chief spokesman in this House, always ignores the facts and figures when he is making his speeches. He has never even attempted to indicate at what cost it will be necessary to build houses in order that they may let at a gross rent of 10s., which is what we want, and still less to let at a gross rent of 7s. As a matter of fact, for a house to let at 10s. to-day, it would have to be built at a cost of £150, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is optimistic enough to believe that that
can be done. In fact he knows perfectly well, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that to-day you cannot build houses to let at the necessary rents without subsidies.
It is perfectly true that, when a Bill is brought in which gives a subsidy, it stimulates building suddenly, and inevitably there is an increased demand, and almost inevitably a rise in prices. There is a Committee on Prices of Building Materials, and I hope the Government will see that that Committee watches the position very closely for the next few months. We have heard a rumour that the Government would bring in a Bill to prevent profiteering in building materials, but were net confident that it would receive support from these benches, and that has been confirmed this afternoon, because, when the Minister of Health was asked why they did not bring in a Bill of this sort, he said, "We should never get a Second Reading."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I must correct the hon. Gentleman on that point. What the Minister said to me in that aside was that the Profiteering Bill of 1924 never got a Second Reading. He was not expressing any pessimism with regard to the possible action of hon. Members opposite in this Parliament.

Mr. SIMON: I think I am safe in saying that, if there should be profiteering in building materials, and if the Government should bring in a reasonable Bill to prevent any such profiteering, they would have all the support that can be afforded by Members on these benches.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Regardless of Liberal principles.

Mr. SIMON: In accordance with Liberal principles.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: No, regardless of them.

Mr. SIMON: May I say, on this question of prices, that the right hon. Gentleman, when he says than prices will go up, ignores the complete difference in conditions as compared wi:h those obtaining in 1924. At that time he was anxious. I think, to build 200,000 houses a year, but
neither the labour nor the building materials existed for the building of such a number. He gave a subsidy, and the result was that each year about 50,000 more men were attracted into the building trade. There are to-day about 150,000 more men in the building trade than there were in 1924, and that was the best thing that was done by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill; but the tragedy is that to-day there are 150,000 unemployed. The position is totally different. Two years ago we built 250,000 houses in one year, but now I venture to say we are not building at half that rate, and we have 150,000 unemployed. The Minister of Health has the advantage of the position prepared for him by the Act of 1924, and all that he has to do is to bring in a Bill which will give employment to those 150,000 people who to-day are out of employment. Conditions are quite different, and there is every reason to suppose that that could be done without any substantial or serious rise in cost. If the Bill does have that effect, it will do more to reduce unemployment than anything which the Lord Privy Seal has been able to do during the last 10 months. It ought to be quite easy to raise the rate of building from 100,000 or 120,000 houses a year to 200,000, and to give employment to an additional 100,000 men.
There has been a report, which I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston has not read, entitled "A Policy for the Slums." It appeared some months ago, having been prepared by a non-party committee of about 30 experts connected with housing, under the National Housing and Town Planning Council. They came to the conclusion that the problem of curing the slums depends on houses being built to let at rents of 10s. and 7s. Houses to let at 10s. can be provided by any economical municipality, and are being built in considerable numbers, but the 7s. house cannot, and this committee, after six months' observation, came to the unanimous conclusion that the right way to provide a 7s. house wasz by a system of children's rent rebates. That is a method the object of which is to ensure that the extra rebate shall only be given to those families who need it, and at the time when they need it.
When they have three or four or more children, they should have a rebate, according to this proposal, of 1s. per child, and as soon as the child begins to earn they would cease to get the rebate. That, I think, gets over all the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman was raising.
A proposal of that sort is quite practicable under this Bill, which, as I think very wisely, leaves to local authorities complete freedom to adopt any scheme that they like. There would be a pool of rents. No rent would be above the Wheatley rent, but the additional grant under this Bill would be pooled. It can be given to any scheme which has been accepted by a local authority. They can, if they like, knock 1s. a week off each house—in other words, they can have a fiat rate—or, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the rent of half the houses might be the Wheatley rent, and the rent of the other half might be 2s. less. Or they might have a certain number of Wheatley rents with a children's rent allowance scheme. The scheme would be perfectly automatic in its working. There would be so much for every dependent child, while that child remains dependent.
6.0 p.m.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read this report; I shall be very glad to send him a copy of it. I think he will find that it will solve all the difficulties that he was raising as to how a scheme of that sort could be fairly administered so as to give help to those who need it. [Interruption.] They can put on a wage limit or not as they like, and that, I venture to say, is one of the good points of the scheme. The Government subsidy of 45s. a year amounts to 9d. per week for each individual. The five years' programme which local authorities in future will have to provide, and the freedom which is left to local authorities, are two very good features of the Bill, but the feature of the Bill on which I want to congratulate the Government, because it is a courageous thing to introduce, is the freedom of local authorities to have differential rents. If you are going to meet the needs of the poorest people with the 7s. house, you are up against this difficulty, that they want, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the same house as a, richer family wants.
You want the same house for 7s. Under the Wheatley Act all you can do is to let all your houses at 7s., which would be disastrous from the Exchequer point of view. The only economic way I have ever yet seen worked out to confine that extra help to those who really need it, is by some system of children's rebates, or, broadly, on some system of differential rating. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having put that into his Bill. It is difficult to say exactly how it will work out. It seems to come practically to this, that for the second child you will get a rebate of 6d., and for each child beyond that a rebate of 9d. a week. It is a very interesting experiment, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having introduced it, but I am not sure how it will work because the second part of Clause 23 says:
Provided that the number of persons to be taken into account in calculating such contribution shall not exceed the number of persons of the working classes for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Minister, been rendered available by the authority in new houses.
Everything depends on how that is worked by the Minister. It leaves the whole thing in the hands of the Minister to do exactly what he likes. If he chooses to say, when a thousand people are cleared out of a slum, "You must build one house for each five persons," then you have to build 200 houses. For every house you get five 9d. grants. The grant thus becomes a grant per house and not a grant per person. I hope the hon. Lady will answer this. Supposing you close an individual house in which there are parents and five young children and build a house to take them, can you give seven grants to that individual house, that is, 5s. 3d. rebate, or can you only have five rebates and pass it over somewhere else? I understand the hon. Lady says you can have seven rebates. I am glad to hear it, because that is a real system of children's rebates. If you can have seven rebates it will knock 3s. 6d. off the weekly grant. If you can only have five it will only knock 1s. 3d. and you cannot do very much.
I come to the next novel point in the Bill—the improvement areas. We have heard a good deal of praise about the improvement area, and it is again an in-
teresting idea, but I have been trying to understand how it would wok out in Manchester, the town I know best. You have there something like 50,000 houses, each very much like the others. They are all houses that should go [...] the next 20 years. There is no bath and no gardens, but they cannot be condemned. Under the Bill you could take out an improvement area of, say, 1,000 houses and in a year or two make the area much better, and, above all, abolish overcrowding, but if you did that it would be a very anomalous thing to do. You would have an area with no overcrowding, but you would have another 49,000 houses all round in which you would ha ve the same disastrous overcrowding that you have today. Why pick out one arm and bring it straight up to a high level? Why not do the sensible thing and take the worst houses in the 50,000 and get, the tenants out into new houses? Could the whole 50,000 houses be declared an improvement area? There is nothing in the Bill about the size of the improvement areas except that in London they must not be less than 10 houses. Should they be 10 or 1,000, or can we call a whole city an improvement area?
There is a point in the financial memorandum that causes me a little uneasiness, on page 3, where the cost to the Exchequer is worked out. The assumption is there made that 100,000 persons are to be displaced each year.

Miss LAWRENCE: indirated dissent.

Mr. SIMON: It is, I hope, a very serious under-statement of what the Government intend to do. The difficulty is that the local authority looks at the Bill and wonders how many houses the Government expected to build. That is the only place where any number is mentioned, and it indicates the building of 20,000 houses a year. I hope it is intended to build five times as many as that. The policy of the Liberal party is to build 200,000 houses a year. This nonparty committee also recommends 200,000 houses a year, of which 100,000 should be subsidy houses. It makes it look as if it is only going to cost £220,000. I hope it will cost four or five times as much. If you translate this into terms of Manchester, it would mean about 400 houses a year. I ask the hon. Lady to consider what this means. We have had
the Bill welcomed as a great and audacious experiment. Most speakers opposite, with the exception of the last, have assamed that it will mean a great and early clearance of slums. Will it? Manchester is to-day letting its A3 houses, and the lowest rent they have is 13s. 5d. Under this Bill half of these houses, if they are built under the Bill, will still be let at 13s. 5d., and the other half will be let at 11s. 5d. If this financial memorandum indicates the scope the Government have in mind, all it will do for Manchester is to enable us to build 200 houses for people cleared from the slums at 11s. 5d. instead of 13s. 5d. If you make it 1,000 instead of 200, that is far too expensive to be any good. I should like to know if there is any way in which it is possible to induce the authorities who are building expensive houses to build houses more cheaply. The cheapest to-day are rented at 13s. 5d., including rates, of course. What we want are rents of 10s. and 7s., including rates. If you reduce the rent in Manchester by 2s. that will be almost nothing. I hope the hon. Lady will not think I have been unduly critical. I have tried to be constructive. I feel a shade of disappointment. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing differential rates, which is the key to the slum problem, but the limitation of the grant to clearance areas, and what may be quite small improvement areas. means that the Bill will not go very far in dealing with the difficulty in some cities, and something has to be done to stimulate municipalities not to put in the best tenants, that is those with the smallest families and the largest incomes. but to get the larger families into houses. I hope the hon. Lady will bear those two things in mind. Broadly speaking, I congratulate the Government on the Bill, and I am sure that we on these benches will do everything in our power to help to make it as effective as possible.

Mr. CAMERON: I rise with a considerable amount of shyness to address the House for the first time. Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has been criticised from both sides of the House, and that it has been pointed out by the late Minister of Health that there is nothing original in it, it has to be remembered that this House has had a
continuous life of over 600 years and this is the first occasion on which a Bill has been introduced with the specific object of dealing principally, if not entirely, with slum clearance. After many years of earnest endeavour in the direction of trying to persuade the people to demand decent housing, I welcome the Bill, because I feel sure that slum clearance transcends in importance any of the domestic problems with which the House is called upon to deal from time to time. Wherever people foregather, and whatever phase of national life is discussed, this problem is almost certain to arise. To me that is a good sign. It is a sign that there is a change in the social conscience of the people, that our people are recognising that it is morally wrong for so many of our fellow-citizens to be condemned to live under the present deplorable conditions. It is not only a matter of the existence of slums being morally wrong. We recognise that it is a disgrace to civilisation. It is certainly greatly the result of the old, mean, illconceived ideas of past generations. In years gone by anything was considered good enough to house certain classes.
We have been told quite recently that even if we provide better houses for these people, the vast majority of them have no desire to leave the slums and that, if they are put into better houses, they will soon reduce them to the state of those they have left. I do not believe it, because experience has proved the contrary. Wherever people have been shifted from slum areas they have risen to the better houses into which they are put. When we hear that story we must remember that 95 per cent. of these poor people are not living in slums from choice. They are there because they are the victims of circumstances, and they would all gladly move away to better and more healthy surroundings, but they cannot. The poverty in which you find them, with hardly the means to keep body and soul together, makes the provision of decent housing accommodation an economic impossibility. They simply cannot pay what is deemed to be an economic rent. That is why the Government is compelled to come in and do something to assist them. For various other reasons it is our moral and bounden duty to do so. It should have been done long ago, but better late than never.
We know quite well that bad housing is the principal cause of ill health and high mortality. Medical officers of health in various parts of the country have reported that the rate of premature deaths is higher in slum areas than in other areas where people are comparatively well housed. While it is true that there is a higher percentage of premature deaths in the slums, this is not the only disaster which befalls the people who live there. It is computed that for every premature death there are 10 cases of sickness, which, while not perhaps proving fatal, so seriously affects the lives of many as to render them of little value to themselves or to the community, and, instead of these poor people being an asset to the country, they become a burden to their relatives and to the State. A policy which perpetuates such conditions ought not to be tolerated in an enlightened community.
I want to say a few words in regard to a question which was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Withington (Mr. Simon). We know well that if we are to be successful in the policy which is enunciated in this Bill, the question of rent must be fully considered. It is an economic question for these people. Our suggestion, and the suggestion which comes from the report which was held up by the hon. Member for Withington, is that an allowance must be made to these people in accordance with the size of their income and the size of the family. If that is not done, the success of any slum clearance policy cannot be what we desire it to be. There are various authorities who have already agreed that where they remove tenants from slum areas and they go into houses built under the 1924 subsidy scheme, a difference in rent shall be allowed according to the circumstances of the people removed. I believe that this sort of thing obtains in Glasgow and in one or two other towns. There are also certain housing companies which deal with the tenants according to their income and the size of their families. It is not a new principle to ask for rent allowances on behalf of these poor people who have not sufficient wages to enable them to secure decent accoanmodation.
Already the Ministry of Health makes provision of milk for necessitous preg-
nant and nursing mothers, and for babies, in order to promote and to protect the health of mothers and babies. The Board of Education makes maintenance allowances to children based upon the size of the family and income of the family. What is good as resiards food and education could quite well be applied to housing. Those who come under the Income Tax assessment know that the Inland Revenue Commissioners make allowances in respect of families. It is not a matter of £2 5s. per annum per child; it is a great deal more. An allowance is made for the first child on the basis of so much in the £, and so much per head is allowed for every other child. As the principle is already in operation, although in a different way, we have no fear as to the result of its application to this Measure for housing those who are taken awa3 from the slums. We hope that the Bill will receive an easy and a rapid passage through this House, and that it will become an Act of Parliament at an early date, so that the work of providing houses for those who are to be removed from the slums in order to permit of their clearance can be proceeded with as soon as possible.
That brings me to the question of compensation. We have heard already the voice of protest. Protest has been made, no doubt, on behalf of those most keenly interested in slum property. One is bound to ask at this stage, what is the justification for the difference in the basis of compensation for property whether it be buildings, food, goods or materials of any kind whatever? What is the reason for the condemnation of certain house property? The reason is that it has become injurious to health and a menace to the health of the community as a whole, and, consequently, being unfit for human habitation, is to be removed. I would treat the slum property owner, the person who owns property which is totally uninhabitable, in the same way as I would treat the vendor of bad food, whether it be milk, meat, fruit or fish, who is liable to have his goods confiscated and destroyed and also liable to a heavy monetary penalty, and, in addition, may run the risk of being imprisoned for the offence. We must not take too much notice of those who protest against the confiscation of property. They have held
that property far too long in its present state, and the sooner it is cleared away the better. I would not give a moment's consideration to the question of compensation for persons who held property which was disease-breeding and injurious to health, any more than I would to persons whose property was taken from them for having half poisoned the people.
I should like to touch upon the, possible increase in the cost of building suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). There is no doubt—and I am now speaking as one who understands something about builders' quantities and builders' costs—that while wages have come down during the past few years, the cost of materials has increased. There is no ring amongst builders as is generally understood, but there are rings amongst builders' suppliers and builders' merchants. I will give an illustration. Some 16 or 17 months ago it was possible to buy the best British Portland cement at 40s. a ton. Within three or four months of that time a ring was formed embracing all the great manufacturers of cement in addition to the principal distributors of building materials. What happened? The price went up to 46s. There was no justification for a 16 per cent. rise in the cost of that commodity, because wages had come down during that period, and the cost of the component parts of Portland cement had not increased. Notwithstanding the fact that we are paying heavy prices for the commonest bricks, which are used extensively in the building of cottages and houses such as we have been discussing this afternoon and which we discussed yesterday, it is possible to put on rail, at the source of production, these bricks at less than £1 per thousand. When we purchase them in London and environs we have to pay anything up to 62s. 6d. per thousand. Where has gone the extra 42s. 6d.? Assuming that 10s. per thousand goes in rail charges and another 7s. 6d. per thousand in transport charges across London, where has the remaining 25s. gone? Such a profit on an expenditure of 37s. 6d. is too high.
I appeal to the Minister of Health to get machinery in motion as speedily as possible—I am sure he will if he can—in order to curb the rapaciousness of the manufacturers and distributors of building materials. These are the per-
sons who make your building costs high. These are the persons who have given rise to the idea that builders are persons who are generally digging gold mines or finding diamonds. It is not as true as all that. I know that some builders have made fabulous profits, but, as far as this class of work is concerned, there is the keenest competition among the contractors who do this class of work, and there is very little margin in it. If you want to cheapen the cost of houses, get at the source of production of material. In addition, get at the source of distribution of these materials. Curb the price of the raw materials and you will very soon reduce the cost of building generally. I would go further. Convinced Socialist that I am, I would have no compunction in dealing with these profiteers when they are dealing with materials which are so necessary for the housing of the poorest section of the community. If they do not sell the materials at a reasonable price, why should not the State open out its own brickfields and its own cement manufacturing plant, and manufacture in regions which might be mapped out and distribute from the source of manufacture direct to the sites where houses are to be built? It is the practical thing to do. It is the business thing to do. It is what other countries have done, and we can do it equally as successfully as they have done it. I do not know whether this matter will be taken up, but I recommend it as one way of getting over the difficulty. If the State finds itself being exploited by individuals—and we know they have done it before time and again—in this moment of crisis, it is the duty of the State to try to defend itself.
As far as the operatives in the building industry are concerned, although I am not now one of them, I want to say a word for them. I have been associated with them for many years. I have helped to organise them and to bring them up to the standard which they enjoy to-day. Whatever building operations are necessary in rehousing the poorest of our people, I sincerely hope that they will give of their best. I have never known them to fail when appealed to in the right way, and I am sure that they will respond if the right appeal is made to them. At the same time, I sincerely hope that the Minister will see that conditions
of labour are observed in keeping with the standard which the organised men in the industry expect. If be does that, I think that everything will work very smoothly, and that everything will be done to provide as quickly as possible all the housing which is required.
I apologise for having taken up so much time, but this being the first occasion on which I have addressed this House—though I have been in the habit of speaking for 35 years—I feel a little out of the usual atmosphere to-night. I again thank the Minister of Health. He has my gratitude, and I am sure that he has the gratitude of the Division which I have the honour to represent. As an illustration of the position there, it was reported to me two days ago in Widnes, the principal town in that county division, that there are hundreds of houses with two and three bedrooms, and there are from eight to 24 persons living in each house. The medical officer of health, one of the most able medical officers, points out that to-day there are twice the number of houses carrying two to three families compared with the year 1919, and that to-day, housing shortage is worse than it was in 1919, notwith-standing the efforts of the late Government and previous Governments.
I am hoping and praying that something substantial will come out of this Bill. It is not a perfect Bill—there was never a perfect Bill brought to this House—hut it is a Bill that can be made to bring benefits to the poorest people. As a craftsman and a technician, with close upon 40 years' experience in this industry, and as one who has been privileged to study and admire buildings of all schools of architecture, ancient and modern, in almost every country in the world, I have felt the thrill of excitement that comes to one who feels the spirit of the architecture and the craftsmanship expressed in those buildings. Where do we find that expression? Where do we find the finest and the most beautiful artistic craftsmanship put into building work to-day? Not in the homes of the workers. When friends have come from other lands, I have taken a considerable amount of craft pride in showing them some of our most beautiful productions, both of the old school and the more modern school, and I have taken them to sites which 25 to 30 years ago
were covered with the worst slums in East Central London, in West Central London, in South West London and in parts of West London. On those sites to-day there are some of the most beautiful buildings to be found in London, owned and controlled by the banking combines, insurance companies, the great stores, luxurious hotels, cinemas, theatres, and dancing schools. There we find the best craftsmanship and some of the finest specimens of architecture.
I hope that we shall do something in the direction of getting better design for the houses of the working classes—it does not need to be ornate—and better planning than anything we have done before. When one walks through our beautiful streets—it seems an irony, but times without number, on a Sunday or on holidays one finds the poorest people coming from the slums to see the beauty of London and to look at the architecture. They are wonderfully proud of the magnificence of some of our streets and buildings, and then they go back again into the slums. It is marvellous that they are so patient, so good, clean and courageous. I have often thought when I have looked at the two extremes, and thought of the grandeur and the greatness that was Rome and Greece, I have thought, too, of the men who made all that possible and how they lived in back streets and underground. Those nations, in due course, fell because to a great extent they commenced building at the wrong end. When the day arrives that we are able to take our friends and show them, with pride, the productions of our architects and craftsmen, and we can at the same time feel that we need not be ashamed to show them where our poorest people live, we shall have won the respect of other nations, and we shall have done our duty to our own people at home.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I can assure the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Cameron) that he has made a favourable impression by the sincerity and depth of feeling that he has shown on the subject of slums. He stated that he was not accustomed to our atmosphere, but he very soon became accustomed to it and delivered his speech in approved fashion. I congratulate him, and I am sure that the House will be glade hear him on subsequent occasions. I do not quite
understand his objection in regard to compensation. No one wishes to compensate highly the person who owns bad property. It is only in those few cases where there happens to be decent property in a poor district where the area is condemned for clearance that we want fair play to be shown to the owner. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate the justice of a claim like that. I am glad that in the hon. Member's speech with respect to the slum dweller there was no echo of the unfortunate part of the remarkable speech made by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). The right hon. Gentleman was very powerful in his comments on the Bill, particularly when dealing with the question of the change in the method by which slum clearances are to be financed. That struck me as being very much on the same lines as the remarks of the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) yesterday, but in the absence of the right hon. Member for Shettleston I will not deal with that point. There are other points in his speech worthy of comment. I congratulate the hon. Member for Widnes on the fact that he did not associate himself with the statement of the right hon. Member for Shettleston that the question of the slums could not be dissociated from class and party. Whatever the origin of the slums may have been, it would be a sad thing for this House, when we are going to deal with them, that we should impart a feeling of class and party to our discussions. I dissociate myself from the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman for Shettleston in regard to that matter.
I am not going to say anything about the magnitude or urgency of the problem with which we are confronted. That will be dealt with fully by other speakers. It is admitted in all quarters of the House, and no one realises it more fully than we do on this side, that the matter is very urgent. I congratulate the Minister of Health on the opportunity that has fallen to him of handling this second big portion of the housing problem. It is a peculiar coincidence that on the 7th and 8th April, 1919, exactly 11 years ago, the first post-War Housing Bill was brought in by the right hon. Member who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. I remember the occasion
well, because history has repeated itself. On that occasion, as on this occasion, I spent a lot of time trying to catch the eye of your predecessor and with about the same success that I tried to catch your eye yesterday, Mr. Speaker. On the second day I got in at a time when the House was pleasantly quiet, just as I have done to-day. On that occasion many hopes were raised. It was thought that that Housing Bill of 1919 was going to cure the housing problem. It has not done so. There have been four Acts since. Those Acts have cured very largely the first half of the problem. They have resulted in the provision of new houses for what we may call the elite of the working classes, but they have not touched the really poor man, the class of people who live in the slums. Attempts were made by Bills in 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926 to handle the slum problem as well as the question of providing houses for those who are able to pay something approaching an economic rent, but much progress has not been made, and the Minister's figures are eloquent on that fact.
Will this Bill provide the necessary impetus to put forward slum destruction and the taking of people out of the slums in a way which the other Bills have not done? The Minister yesterday mentioned three or four causes of the slow progress that has been made during the last 11 years. The complication of law and procedure is one of the causes, and he thinks that the Bill will do something in that respect. The local authorities have been taken up with the new housing problem, and that has been another cause of delay. In addition, the old fifty-fifty system has necessitated a good deal of control of the local authorities by the central authority, and that has been a contributory cause of delay. All these causes taken together do not represent a small percentage of the real root cause which has prevented a rapid dealing with the slum problem, and that is the cost of the clearances and the fact that the ordinary dweller in the slums is unable to pay an economic rent, or an economic rent even aided by the subsidy. That, again, is an element of cost.
I was a member of the London County Council for 12 years, and I remember that in 1904 it was suggested that we should deal with a big area in the East end of London. I was not on the coun-
cil at the time, but I went there some years afterwards. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will remember the occasion because she was on the London County Council at the same time that I was a member. That slum clearance has been continuing on and off ever since, but when War broke out it was interfered with and the work is not yet finished. It has cost between £230,000 and £240,000 in clearance and about £135,000 in new buildings. The problem was of handling a slum in which 4,500 people lived, and this House put upon the local body the responsibility of housing 3,500 of these people on the site, which was all that could be housed on the site. As a matter of fact, the slum is not yet cleared nor is the work finished. I agree that so far as the question of delay is concerned circumstances existed then which do no longer exist, but I want to draw the attention of the House to the enormous and necessary cost of a matter of this kind. A sum of nearly £400,000 has been expended in handling quite a small area. The House can imagine that in dealing with an expenditure of that kind that time and delay are necessary. You cannot spend sums of that description in a hurry.
I want the House to consider how much the Bill is going to help to accelerate building, conditions being as I have described in regard to the enormous question of cost. Will the change from a fifty-fifty allowance on the part of the State under the old system to the new method, which I gather only means an increase to about 60 per cent. of the allowance on the part of the State, or 65 per cent. at the most, operate to accelerate the clearance of slums and the building of new houses? The question of the right hon. Member for Shettleston, as to how the building of new houses is to be obtained as between the conditions of this Bill and his Bill was very pertinent. It is difficult to reconcile the two Bills: and I hope we shall hear something from the Parliamentary Secretary when she deals with the matter. I think the Minister has made a mistake in not admitting the other element with which he deals in his Bill to a much greater share in the Bill itself. He has confined himself too much to clearance, and not given a fair share to what he describes as the improvement Clauses. He will not
get anything like the rapid progress he desires from clearance alone, for the reasons I have indicated, and I do not think he should leave any source out of consideration which would enable him to accelerate the placing of slum dwellers in conditions which are better than they live in to-day.
Another point has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. wood). So long as the right hon. Gentleman does not tackle Clause 46 of the old Act fairly and sincerely his failure will result in great delays in regard to the clearance of slums. You cannot get a local authority to be an instrument of unfairness and injustice. I have seen it operate over and over again. I know of a case at the moment where a number of small dwellings and workshops and business premises, perfectly sound, are in the middle of what is undoubtedly a slum area, but the local authority will not handle that question. They know that if they do on the basis of this Bill they will inflict very severe injustice on many of their fellow citizens. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced into his Bill one little point which is all to the good. It is that which gives a local authority, if it cares, the option of giving something in respect of business goodwill. In doing that, the Minister of Health has given the whole case away. He is bound to go further. Having admitted that there may be an element of justice in a case of this kind he cannot stop there. It will do him no good, and no local authority is going to proceed in these cases by making a small ex gratia allowance for goodwill when you are going to take away his building and reduce the cost of the site, because it happens to be in an area of this description. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Health must realise that in Committee this matter will have to be dealt with.
I should like to point out the illogicality of the position of the Minister in this matter. If hon. Members will look at Schedule 3, Part 1, they will see that it provides for compensation on a low basis for clearance schemes. Part 2 of Schedule 3 provides—and this is something to be said in favour of the proposals—for a higher basis of compensation to be applied to improvement
schemes. Why should a man who has a sound house or business premises under Part 2 receive the favourable consideration which Part 2 gives but if the same premises come under Part 1 be mulct in much more unfavourable conditions. The whole thing is illogical, and the Government will have to meet that point or the same delays will take place as have taken place in the past.
Then the Minister has failed to do himself justice by the way in which he is dealing with what he calls improvement areas. He was good enough to answer a question I put to him in the middle of his speech yesterday. I should like to carry that point a little further. The Bill admits that a slum may be of a character which does not demand clearance, but is a border-line case, which may be treated under the Clauses dealing with improvement schemes. That is an admission which I accept as likely to assist to a certain extent in the clearance of slums, and when I looked at Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, which purport to deal with this matter, I was at first under the impression that the Minister had made a move in the right direction. Looking into it a little more carefully I find that he has gone back and that the position he has taken up in these Clauses is an absolutely retrograde position.
Under the old Act it was possible, where an area was bad but not bad enough to be treated with the severity of a clearance area, for the local authority to obtain 50 per cent. of any loss brought about by carrying out the scheme from the central authority. That has entirely gone. It went partially when the two cases were decided to which the Minister referred yesterday, but the right hon. Gentleman has completed the destruction of any power of dealing with these areas by what has been described as reconditioning. He is repealing the Section in the Act of 1923 which permits a local authority to give assistance in a case of that kind, and so far as Clauses 5 and 6 are concerned all he does is to say that the local authority may insist upon an owner repairing any houses that need repair, or they may buy up such areas as are required for the purpose of opening up for giving light and air.
What is the use of giving the local authority the right to buy up areas for the purpose of giving light and air and not giving them assistance to buy up the houses fronting these areas? I can take the Parliamentary Secretary to a, good many places where there are streets of houses; the front houses being in quite a decent condition and quite capable of being repaired and maintained, but where the back gardens have been filled with tenement dwellings of a very flimsy description blocking out light and air, and themselves creating a slum. This Bill gives the local authority the right to buy these tenements at the back for the purpose of pulling them down and giving light and air to the district, but it does not give the local authority power to purchase the frontage houses, which alone make it worth while to acquire the back-land and tenements for the purpose of giving light and air.
The result of these two Clauses and the unwillingness to give local authorities more assistance to carry out what the Minister describes as improvement schemes will tend to delay the clearance of slums and the re-housing of the people in the slums. There is a provision in the Bill by which the Minister takes power only to give assistance to local authorities who provide new houses. Nothing whatever is done to help those who undertake schemes under the improvement clauses of the Bill; and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Health will take into consideration the possibility of assisting these elements in the Bill. If they do not do so I am satisfied that they will not get the progress which they and the rest of the House desire.

7.0 p.m

Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: Those hon. Members who have been dealing with the question of compensation may, I think, be left to the vote of this House. Nothing has given more hope to those who care about the question of slum clearance than the proposals in the Bill dealing with the subject of compensation. I want to say a word, and I will be extremely brief, on the slum problem as we known it in the North East area. In the North East of England we have a more severe problem of housing than perhaps in any other quarter. In prac-
tically all the towns of Tyneside and Wearside overcrowding is. more than 30 per cent., and we have at the same time poverty and unemployment so great that to move the population from the one, two, and three-roomed tenements into decent houses is to-day a matter of the gravest difficulty. In Sunderland, which I know, of course, best, the Corporation has some 2,000 houses. It has a waiting list of 1,200 people, and the rents of these houses vary from an inclusive rent of 12s. a week to one of 19s. The number of rooms in the houses varies from three to five, and, although we have the shockingly low standard of the three-roomed house even in the case of corporation houses, the present inclusive rent is as high as 10s. even in the special re-housing scheme. In general, the rent is over 12s. In two small schemes of slum clearance the difficulties of getting the people to move to new houses has been extremely great, not because the people are satisfied with what they have, but because they cannot afford the new rent, and, for another reason, they have no furniture to put into the new houses. That is a difficulty which this Bill still leaves us to face, but, if we can have some improvement in the rentals, we have at least a beginning.
A great deal of stress is laid by some speakers on the fact that many men and women cling to their old homes in the slums, that they like to live there, and that nothing will persuade them to go to a new place. It is quite true that parochial patriotism exists but it is only among a very small number of people. Give them a chance of a rent that they can contemplate paying with anything like regularity, and you will have little trouble on the other points. I might give the particular experience of the town I represent on that point In one small clearance scheme the re-housing was to take place on an estata that was about one and a-half miles away, and the rents were just over 10s. The people were living in rooms, and the cost was from 2s. to 8s. to each of them. They would not move. Some of them got gradually shifted into surrounding rooms and people from there who were a little better off went on to the other place. Finally, the Corporation had to buy up an old building and turn it into tenements for
those who remained and let them have them at cheap rents. Now, in a town where there is a housing short age to-day of something like 5,000 homes, where there are some 3,000 houses in the most desperate need of repairs to make them at all possible to live in, where there is a waiting list of 1,200 and where there have only been built 2,000 Wheatley and other houses, this Bill must be welcomed as a possible chance of salvation for a very great population that 1ms stood for several generations a very hard existence.
I am quite sure that, as far as the North East is concerned, for the other towns as well as for Sunderland, we can promise a very hearty welcome to the proposals for slum clearance and rebuilding on the lines the Government have laid down. I would add this one word. I very strongly agree with the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. D. Simon), who is so great an expert on these questions, that it is a very good thing to have left the local authorities discretion as to the way in which they arrange the differential rerts. But I hope the Minister of Health will have some suggestions to make, some proposals to put forward, worked out by a strong Committee that has a wide experience of these matters, for the smaller authorities who are not, like Manchester, so able to draw up their own schemes for themselves. At, the same time, they will need to give equally sound advice for cheaper building to some of these smaller authorities. Our building is costing us far too much. In comparison with other towns, it is too high, and we suggest that the Ministry of Health should not only go on and take further powers, which will be essential, in regard to building materials, but that it should lead the local authorities, with the help of the best among those authorities, towards the solution of this question of the best way of arranging the differential rents and the best way of getting this reduction in building cost. I am very glad to be able to welcome this Bill.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I so seldom address this House that, although I cannot claim this to be a maiden speech, I almost feel that I can claim the indulgence of its Members. I only rise on this occasion because of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading of the Bill when he made
a very direct reference to the appalling condition of housing in the City of Exeter, which I have the honour to represent in Parliament. I am not going to criticise the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, because I think they are quite justified. The conditions of some of the housing in Exeter is appalling. For that reason, ever since I have been a Member of this House, I have consistently supported every Minister who has brought forward a Housing Bill. I supported most consistently the Addison scheme, also the Wheatley scheme, the Chamberlain scheme, and now I hope to support the Greenwood scheme—always in the hope that something will be done to clear away the slums.
Unfortunately, Exeter is not the only place with a monopoly of bad slums. My experience of slums is simply this, that, when you are inspecting one slum, you think it is the worst in the country until you go to the next town, and then you change your mind. I know there are difficulties in getting over all these housing problems. In the very attractive maiden speech delivered last evening by an hon. Member, she said that one of her fears was the expert, the housing expert. I rather agree with her. They are very often people who know more and more about less and less. At the same time, these difficulties have to be faced.
I agree with the remarks uttered by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) yesterday, when he said that we have to face facts. As far as my knowledge of housing is concerned we shall have to face one fact and that is, that, if we are going to house decently people who are only earning very low wages, we have to keep out of our minds the way in which many of us have approached this question. We must not look at it merely from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, but from the point of view of the human being. In my own neighbourhood, there are a great many men earning on an average only 40s. or 50s. a week, and some of them even lower than that. How can they possibly pay 12s. a week for rent? Tt means practically a quarter of their earnings. I do not say that they do not pay it, but, if they do, it means that they must restrict their expenditure on their wives and families in a way that they
ought not to be called upon to do. As long as we have at the back of our minds the fact that we must have a housing scheme which is going to prove economic from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, we shall be disappointed. I know you can bring forward a scheme that will build houses and pay an economic rent, but we must look at it from another point of view.
Although I hold no brief whatever for the owner of the slum property who extracts for it a high rent, yet at the same time there is somebody more to blame than he, and that is the community who have allowed the people to go on without any houses at all. It is no use blaming the slum owner, who says, "Here is a house; it is a bad house, but after all it is a house," when, whenever you bring up a scheme before the local council, the whole question is whether it will pay or not. Very often houses are erected, but at a rent that no working man on a low wage can pay.
In conclusion, we shall have to face this Bill and all other legislation with regard to housing by dismissing from our minds any idea that we are going, as far as the low-wage earners are concerned, to provide decent houses for them to live in which will at the same time prove to be a good financial investment. We have to remember an old saying but a very true one, that we most of us know the price of everything but we do not know its value. We know what it costs to build a house, but we do not always recognise the value of a good home. That is a thing which is difficult to value, but, in my opinion, the money we save in keeping up bad houses is false economy. We have to find the money in other ways, and it is better for the State to find a little more money for the decent housing of the people than to economise in that respect and to have to spend the taxpayers' money in sanitary, health or other services. There is also a higher consideration. This is something more than a physical question; it is a spiritual question, because, in these bad homes, in these wretched hovels, you not only sap the strength of the people, but you do what is almost worse, you drive the very soul out of the nation, and once a nation loses its soul it loses its most precious possession.

Miss LAWRENCE: We have had a very long, a very interesting, and, on the
whole, a very encouraging Debate. The House has made it clear that it proposes to give a Second Reading without a Division to this Bill, and I can imagine nothing more encouraging to my right hon. Friend. We have had a long discussion, not too long, when we consider the importance of the subject which we have been discussing. The Debate has been ornamented by the maiden speeches of three Members. Two of them made their debut under particularly fortunate circumstances. It was not only that the House was pleased to hear them, but they had a better audience than the House, for each had listening to them the one person in all the world to whom their success was most precious.
This House in this long Debate has touched upon an enormous number of points. I will begin by taking some points—I will not say unimportant points but isolated points—not connected with the main structure of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) expressed the fear that paragraph 8 of the Financial Memorandum limited the amount. I assure the House that it does not limit the amount. There is nothing approaching an estimate in the Financial Resolution, because in this, as in all other Housing Bills, the amount depends on the success of the scheme. Where there is no estimate, the Treasury finds it convenient to take a unit, and this time they take a unit of 100,000 persons to show what the cost may be. They might as well have taken a unit of 10 or a unit of 1,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have had the slightest objection if a unit of 1,000,000 had been taken for this purpose.

Mr. SIMON: Has the hon. Lady any idea how much it will cost?

Miss LAWRENCE: My hopes are very large. I think they were right in choosing 100,000 as a convenient unit on which to calculate, for I hope that we shall be calculating on very large numbers indeed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and other speakers raised the question of reconditioning. Their idea is that the local authority should take over bad property where it can be repaired, and recondition it and use it.
We are definitely against that policy. The local authorities, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has remarked, have said that they have no desire to see that policy extended. The contention of hon. Members opposite is that where private ownership is making a bad thing out of property of this kind, public enterprise should take it over, but were private enterprise is doing well, then the local authorities should let it alone. Well, the defenders of private enterprise cannot have it both ways. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston is prepared to advance the theory that the State shoed take the rough with the smooth, and nationalise all building, and become the universal landlord, I should find the suggestion attractive, but the idea that the local authority is to take over:he thin part of the property while private enterprise is to keep the thick part of it is quite absurd. There are similarly factory owners on whom a very heavy obligation is placed—an obligation which it is difficult for the poorer of them to meet—and we deal mercilessly with the black sheep, and we do so with the full approval of the respectable men in the industry. Property has its duties as well as its rights; hut as long as a landlord keeps property he ought to keep that property in good order, and as a matter of fact he could do a little more for house property because the local authority may lend the landlord money for repairs. So much for reconditioning.
Two interesting questions were raised by the hon. Member for Withington. He asked what was the meaning of an improvement area, and he asked whether Manchester, for example, could make the whole of Manchester an improvement area? The answer is that that is just what we do not want. We do not want a local authority to make an improvement area so vast in extent that they will not deal with it in a reasonable time. We desire that they shall take, first one improvement area, and then another, that they shall clean up one area, and then go on to others. We do not want them to go over the whole town picking out which properties they will repair, because, if local authorities do that they will pick out the best tenants. We want them to take a whole improvement area
and deal with that area in the best way, and rehouse the people whom they displace in the process of cleaning that area. We desire that the local authorities, in dealing with the crowded areas of which the hon. Member spoke, should take, first this piece and then that piece, and deal with each piece and pass on to the next. The hon. Member also spoke of the high prices of houses in Manchester. I should be the last person to wish, and I am sure no one would wish, to coerce so great a city as Manchester, but we hold up before it the example of the cheaper house. In round figures, the cost of a house in Manchester, all in, is £500 instead of £400; but it looks to me that in re-housing its slum tenants, Manchester will find that it must either reduce the cost, or pay more from the rates. As to which course is taken, that is really a city problem for Manchester to meet.
In regard to the question of subsidy, there, the hon. Member for Withington has anticipated me. We have had trotted out in this Debate the old worn-out stalking-horse of an argument that subsidies increase prices—a statement which we have heard over and over again in these Debates without the faintest shadow of evidence to support it. I have pointed out to the House, until I am weary of doing so, that the Addison houses went down in cost before the subsidy was taken off, and I have pointed out, when we talk about prices in the case of Scottish and English houses, that both went down together. But I have an even more interesting conundrum than that to put to hon. Gentlemen opposite. We took the subsidy off private enterprise houses altogether in September last, and we left the public enterprise houses with a subsidy of 馣7 10s. If there was anything in this argument about the subsidy, the cost of private enterprise houses should have rushed down, and public enterprise houses, under the baleful influence of the subsidy, should have remained high in cost. Not a bit of it. The two sets of houses have remained at the same price, and as nearly as possible steady; and about half of the houses were houses built with subsidy. No, hon. Members opposite must look at proved facts in these matters, and, in regard to the question of houses, demand governs price. If you force up the demand, either the de-
mind of the public or the demand of the local authorities, beyond what the trade will bear at any moment, undoubtedly you will get fancy prices.
The question of what the trade can bear was a great question debated in connection with the Wheatley Act of 1924, and many were the prophets who told my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) that he had altogether overestimated the capacity of the trade to build and that he could never get his programme of houses. The chief of the tribe of Balaam on that occasion is no longer with us. He has gone to another and a higher place in this building, but the House will remember how he explained that those proposals would be beyond the capacity of the trade. Yet the trade found itself able to furnish a vast number of houses. These were by no means all houses to let, but were houses for middle-class people. One remembers how during the last Election or the Election preceding that, the walls were placarded with triumphant announcements to the effect that "800,000 houses have been supplied under a Conservative Government." We objected then, because the implication was that those were houses for workers, but that figure was perfectly justified as an estimate of what the trade could do.
What the trade has done it will not be called upon to do again, but it is all the same to the trade whether they build 10–roomed houses or three-roomed houses, and what has happened in these past years is that the demand for houses, of what we call the middle-class type—I will not say has reached saturation point, but is within reach of saturation point. Those great towns like Hendon and Mitcham which we have seen develop have been built for people above the status of the weekly wage-earner, but the end of that occupation for the building trade is in sight. It is coming to an end, and, unless we supply that trade with some other occupation, unless we turn the energies of the trade on to new houses we may find, in two or three years, as much unemployment in the building trade as in any other trade in the country. They have increased their personnel to meet the demand, and in this Bill we are substituting a demand for little houses in place of the demand for larger houses, that demand being nearly satisfied. If that be so, we have no cause to fear pro-
fiteering. There is the further question of notice, and this is of the essence of the bargain, because the trade is extremely elastic if sufficient notice is given. Therefore, we ask the urban authorities for a five years' programme. If it were the duty of my right hon. Friend the Minister to say, "Go slow "; if every local authority were inclined to overbuild, then we could warn the trade and we could, if necessary, though I do not think it will be necessary, rather moderate the activities of the local authorities.
One of the main questions on which this Debate is turned has been that of compensation. A great many speakers have dealt with this question, and I begin my remarks upon it by dealing with one objection which is subsidiary to the main question. It is said that local authorities have sometimes acquired slum property, giving the owners site value for it, and have kept the property and pocketed the rents. There are two cases to be considered in that connection. There is one case where it is necessary and legitimate to do so. That is the case where a local authority purchases a big slum property which is very much crowded, and performs the operation known as "decanting"—clearing a corner of it and building tenements or houses, and then going on with the clearance. In that case, it may be quite necessary to keep the slum property occupied until the operation can be finished.
There is another case. After the War local authorities were extraordinarily hopeful about housing, and about the clearance of slums, and schemes were undertaken. Then, owing to circumstances which arose, they went slow with their slum schemes and those who were my colleagues on the. London County Council know what inevitably happened for several years after the money crisis. Those circumstances are not likely to occur again, but we have inserted provisos in the Bill, to ensure that purchase, clearance and rehousing shall go hand in hand. They will not go too fast if they are kept to the conditions in the Bill
I come to the question of the landlords who are to be dispossessed. People talk as if there were or would be two classes of property geographically included in what we call slums. It is not true. There are three classes which are distinct by
statute. There are first the houses which are only fit to be pulled down. There are secondly houses which by their situation, being crowded together, are injurious to health. These two conditions are set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. Thirdly, if you go through any district, you will see in it patches of good property which is neither bad in itself nor is the cause of danver to the inhabitants near by. Thme are the properties which on a plan are called blue property, and the others are called pink. Under the existing w the pink properties, the owners of houses which are bad in themselves or which by their crowded arrangements are dangerous, are given site value only: the others are given market value. There is a deduction from site value in certain circumstances, but broadly the two first classes get site value and the others market value.
Nothing in all that is changed in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Edgbaston was in error when he said that if you had a slum area, you would be bound to pull down churches, shops, halls, and perfectly good buildings, and I think the error arose from the slight change of description in this Bill, and from a misunderstanding—I can give it no other name, and it surmised me more than I can say—of the term "area." People visualise an area as something hound by four boundaries, east, north. south, and west, and think that everything within that area is in the clearance area. It is not so. In such a case the good property, the property not injurious to health in any way, would not be within the area at all; it would be, in the language of Clause 3, "land which is surrounded by the clearance area." If you look at Clause 3, you will see that power is given to purchase land surrounded by a clearance area, just as it is given to purchase land adjoining a clearance area. The idea that there could be a block of perfectly good property not injurious to health in that area is negatived by the words of Clause 1, which says "the dwelling-house, in that area." This does not mean some of the houses in the area, it means al the houses in the area have got to be either bad in themselves or injurious by reason of their crowded condition. Others are outside the clearance area.
I want to point out what happens in practice and how meticulous the Minister is in picking out every spot of property in a slum for which market value can be paid. I have here the Eugene Street scheme of the City of Bristoi. It was a pretty bad slum. The council's chief housing inspector said that even if every house were put into a sanitary condition, the area would still be unhealthy, and the town clerk said that the condition of the property was appalling. The Minister picked out four patches in the middle of that slum, of houses which were neither bad in themselves nor injurious to their surroundings, and market value was paid. I do not think anybody would want to see a worse slum than Hickman's Folly. The houses were all worn out and insanitary, the arrangements defective, the streets narrow, the external ventilation defective, the foundations were saturated with water, and so on. I need not give all the disgusting details. But when the Minister came to look at it, he picked out in the middle of that slum, one of the worst that I know, seven houses for market value.
Here I have a little list of what the Minister has done in a number of slum districts. I am giving this to show that the blue patches are picked out now; and indeed the local authorities complain that we are too generous. In Ossulton Street there are 312 properties submitted for site value and 12 for market value: the Minister made 59 site value properties market value properties. Here is another London area. Out of 260 properties, the Minister picks out 45 to have full market value. Here is a Ramsgate scheme, with 87 properties scheduled as site value by the local authorities, and the Minister makes 22 of them market value properties. Here is Wakefield, with 162 properties scheduled as site value by the local authority, and the Minister makes them, pay market value for 34. Wallasey, with 101 scheduled by the local authority, had 17 carefully picked out by the Minister.
Perfectly sound property gets market value; for property which is in itself unfit for human habitation, nobody would give more than site value. There remain the houses which by reason of their bad environment, bad arrangement of streets, and so on, are injurious to health. That is what the battle centres
round. What the property owners are asking is that you should take every house in a crowded court and say that if this house were removed into an open field, it would be worth patching, and you have to pay compensation on that hypothetical basis. Every such collection of houses injurious to health consists of properties so crowded together as to injure the health of the inhabitants, properties which collectively are in the nature of a public nuisance and which, because they are a public nuisance, are collectively yielding far more profits than anyone ought to have. They are yielding a good deal. We have a little green book circulated in the House with a preface by the Bishop of London, which gives a rent of £18s. a week for a house with six rooms and two basements. He gives other rents, and anyone can parellel the sort of rents paid for slum property, and those rents are increasing with the increasing house-hunger of the inhabitants and with the escape of houses from the Rent Restrictions Act.
This case was before Parliament in 1919, and Parliament, with no dissentient, but with one or two proposed amendments, turned that down. Parliament said unanimously that under conditions which increased mortality and so on the owners were lucky if they got site value. Some think now that those people are lucky enough if they are not called upon to make restitution of their illicit profits. That was in 1919. Hon. Members may think that dates are irrelevant, but they are not irrelevant when you are dealing with real property. Parliament in 1919 depreciated the value of every bit of property of that nature. Since then there has been a great deal of buying and selling. Sellers have sold at a disadvantage, and in the case of properties inherited, the heirs have received damaged goods.
It is urged by two or three Members that under the law as it stands the local authorities are deterred from purchasing slum property. We have spoken a good deal of the slowness of slum clearaniee, but it is 10 times as fast as it was before the Act of 1919 was passed. There were confirmed, from 1922 to 1927 inclusive, 138 schemes. I know the rate of progress has been slow, but they were confirmed, and in the seven years immediately preceding the War there were only 13
schemes confirmed. The rate of progress since that Act has been passed has been 10 times as fast. But let us see what the local authorities themselves have to say on the question. There was held in November, 1929, a conference by the Association of Municipal Corporations on housing and slum clearance. It was a very important conference indeed, so important that the right hon. Member for Edgbaston was in the chair. A great number of local authorities considered a report of their housing committee. They dealt with the difficulties of slum clearance, they said that the slowness of procedure made it very difficult for them, and they said—and this will surprise no one who knows local authorities—that they wanted more money to be spent. We are giving them that, and giving it to their satisfaction. They went on to this question of compensation, and the clauses I am going to read were unanimously
accepted. Everyone who wants to approach this question seriously should ponder what these local authorities said, which was:
We have considered the question (of compensation) further, particularly in the light of the criticism that the Section works harshly towards the owners of the property concerned. On this point we cannot but recall that the property has been condemned because the conditions existing in the area, and being due to the state of the property itself, are injurious to health. It must also be noted that since the present terms of compensation were embodied in the Statute the reduced value thereby placed on insanitary areas has become well known, and transfers of property have taken place on that basis of value. To alter that basis now would add a very large sum—a gift from the public—to the now recognised value of slum property. We think it not unimportant to add that we know of no modification that can be devised in the terms of Section 46 in favour of the property owner that would not add a considerable and unfair burden upon the community.
That is what they say. On the main question, if these people who are doing the job said they were deterred from making improvements, it would mean that our work would not go on. We should take their opinion as valuable evidence, but not a word, not a hint, not a murmur of warning to the Minister to stand fast. Amateur spokesmen for local authorities may say they are deterred, hut the local authorities are made of much sterner stuff than that. They are
not deterred by this. They say so. What they are deterred by is the difficulty of administration, slowness of procedure, and want of money.
I pass to what is, after all, the heart and kernel of the Bill, the question of the subsidy per person and the differential rents. It is the really I hopeful part of the Bill. People have asked in the course of this Debate, why a subsidy per person? Now the Wheatley Net has fulfilled all the hopes of the promoters. It has produced a programme of houses, and up to the expectation of its author, and its usefulness continues We want to leave the Wheatley Act untouched, and we shall use all the very considerable powers which the Statute gives us to
induce the local authorities to make full use of it. The Wheatley houses, and the Wheatley Act have been a success.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: As regards rental?

Miss LAWRENCE: The progress of the clearance of the slum areas has not been at all comparable to the progress of the Wheatley houses. The reason why, in the first place, we give a subsidy per person is to link up the rehousing of the displaced with the destruction of bad property. You do nothing whatever for a slum dweller if you merely destroy the slum, and you do not do very much for him if you simply do nothing but build houses. If we go wrong in this matter, we can waste in a most pitiful way an enormous amount of public money without benefit to a human creature. I alluded to that little green pamphlet of the Paddington Housing Association. In that are given heart-rending particulars of one area, the Clarendon Street area. How did it get into that condition? I am old enough to know that. Clarendon Street used to be a decent street of middle-class houses. The local authority had a large clearance in the neighbourhood. They got rid of a very well-known rookery, and they did not care twopence what happened to the people. The people went out in bodies and emigrated into Clarendon Street and the neighbourhood, and, when the local authority had finished the clearance, they had only shifted the site of the slum Unless you have replacement and clearance together, you have done nothing. We say that clearance is to be bound up with rehous-
ing, and it must be rehousing available for the person at a rent according to the person's capabilities. You displace so many persons, and, as you have to provide accommodation for them, you get a subsidy per person. I now am conscious that I am repeating to a great extent what the hon. Member for Withington said.
Who are the people in the slums? They are all very unfortunate people indeed, but their misfortunes are of very different kinds. At one end are the people with good steady wages and small families, who are in the slums because they have nowhere else to go. These are the people whom I know in London and Greater London, and who write to me weekly imploring me to use what they call my influence with the London County Council to get them of the council houses. They do not ask for lower rent. They ask me to get them on the council's waiting list, and to use what influence they suppose a Minister has in pushing their claim.
At the other end are the very poor people with very large families. There was a famous case in Poplar, when everybody threw up their hands in the last Parliament because the Poplar Board of Guardians had given a man and his Family more relief than a man would had earned in full wages. The reason given was that he was a docker with 11 children. What earthly good is a house at a Wheatley rent to a dock labourer with 11 children? What are you going to do with him? Any sort of flat subsidy we can pay per house or per person which would cover that case of desperate need, would be wildly and absolutely extravagant in dealing with a man at the other end who is quite able to pay the ordinary assisted rent. There is not any way out of it except by differential rents.
What we say in this Bill is this, and I want to explain it once more because there has been some misunderstanding. If a local authority displaces 500 people, and builds 100 houses, let us see how it will work. We shall give the authority £1,125 a year for 40 years They will have to subscribe from the rates at least the equivalent of £375 per house for 40 years. This on a 60 years basis is £1,340 a year. The annual cost of the estate, let us say, the management and everything
else, is £2,800. You deduct £1,340 from the £2,800, and that leaves £1,460, which is the rent which the local authorities will get from the 100 houses. What rent is each tenant going to pay? Exactly what the local authority choose to fix within that limit. They can, and I think that they generally will, make a rent abatement for children, and, as the hon. Member for Withington says, a rent abatement for children answers all the absurd questions as to what happens when the children grow up. As the children grow up, the rent abatement will drop. They can also make an abatement for pure poverty if they will, and people say, what will happen when people become richer? The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Cameron) answered that. He said, what about the Income Tax abatements? You get abatements for Income Tax if you are poor, and if you have children, and, as your children grow up, or if you become rich, the Income Tax abatements stop. So can the rent abatements stop.
I come to the point dealt with by the right hon. Member for Shettleston. These houses are not subject to maximum or minimum standards, and slum replacement houses never have been subject to the conditions of the 1923 Act. There has never been any maximum or minimum standard for houses for replacement of slum areas. Under the Bill, you can have for the distressful man with 11 children a larger and bigger house than usual at a lower rent than usual, and you can deal in that way with every other class of tenant. I want to say a word as to the reason why we did not put children's allowances directly in the Statute. It is difficult to put it into the Statute, because not only the number, but the age and the sex of the children may be different. The children are not the only people living in the slums. There are a great many children living there, but in some of the very worst areas there are very few children. I am afraid that I connect that with another deplorable fact, that in the slums it is very likely that there are not so many children living because so many have died. Who lives in these places besides children? Take the lone person; take the widow or the spinster, keeping herself either with a pension or without. What does the local authority do for her? The Wheatley house would be no good for her if she got it. What
she wants is a bed-sittingroom and a scullery. There is nothing to prevent the widow and lone person under this Bill getting a bed-sittingroom, and the modest accommodation she wants with assistance for her rent as much as is necessary.
The accommodation of people from the slums is not a simple task. The local authorities are the people who will get into touch with it, and they will see the difficulties and know them far better than we can do. We are asking the local authorities for programmes, and we are giving them a great deal of money. I will give the capital annuity values of the various subsidies. The capital value over 40 years of the Chamberlain subsidy is £70; the Wheatley subsidy £124; the first Greenwood subsidy £195, counting five persons to a house; rural areas subsidy £215; and the highest subsidy £301. That is a great deal of money. For the rest, we rely on the schemes of the local authorities and the Minister's approval of the houses. In return for the money we ask for programmes, and we have great powers of enforcement.
I ask Members to look away from the objections to details to the main part of the Bill. We have had during this Debate heartrending accounts of our slums. We have not up to now done anything worth mentioning for the people in overcrowded districts. We need a new line of attack. We need a new principle. We are giving more money, and we are sweeping away grievances. The kernel and heart of the Bill is the subsidy per person and the differential rents. We are allowing local authorities to consider human needs. We are writing on the Statute Book of England the good old Socialist doctrine of each according to his needs. It is a hopeful departure, and I have great pleasure in being allowed to take part in it.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (No. 2) (EXPENSES.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further and
better provision with respect to the clearance or improvement of unhealthy areas, the repair or demolition of insanitary houses and the housing of persons of the working classes, to amend the Housing Act, 1925, the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and the other enactments relating to housing subsidies and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of annual contributions towards any expenses incurred by local authorities in connection with any action taken by them under the said Act for the clearance or improvement of unhealthy areas, or for the demolition of insanitary houses, or for the closing of parts of buildings and in connection with the provision and main tenance of the housing accommodation rendered necessary by any action so taken, but so, however, that such a contribution shall be payable during a period of forty years only, and shall not, exceed an amount ascertained in the following manner, that is to say—

(a) subject to the special provisions contained in the next succeeding paragraph the amount shall be, so far as regards persons displaced From houses in an agricultural parish, the sum of two pounds ten shillings, and so far as regards persons displaced from houses in a parish not being an agricultural parish the sum of two pounds five shillings, multiplied in either case by the number of persons of the working classes (being persons whose displacement is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister to have been rendered necessary by such action as aforesaid) for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Minister, been rendered available in new houses; but
(b) if the Minister of Health certifies that it is necessary to provide rehousing accommodation in buildings of more than three storeys on the site of a clearance area, or on a site which has been, or is to be, acquired or appropriated for the purpose with the consent of the Minister, then, so far as regards displaced persons for whom such accommodation has, with the approval of the Minister, been rendered available, the amount shall be the sum of three pounds ten shilling., multiplied by the number of persons of the working classes (being persons whose displacement is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister to have been rendered necessary by such action aforesaid) for whom such accommodation has, with his approval, been rendered available;

(ii) of annual contributions towards the provision, to meet the needs of aged persons, of houses of smaller dimensions than those specified in Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Housing. etc., Act, 1923, not exceeding, however, it the case of any such house, two-thirds of the contribution which might under that Act or under the
2061
Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, be made towards the provision of a house of the specified dimensions;
(iii) of any additional sums which may become payable under the previous enactments relating to housing subsidies by reason of any provision or the said Act which—

(a) amends Section five of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, in regard to the dates at which the Minister of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland are required by the said Section to review and, if they deem it expedient, revise the amount of the contributions payable by them in respect of the provision of houses;
(b) substitutes, for the purposes of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, an amended definition of 'agricultural parish' so far as regards houses for the provision of which proposals may be approved by the Minister of Health after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty; or
(c) provides that, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, the amount of an annual payment to he made to a local authority under Section seven of the Housing, Town Planning. etc., Act, 1919, Section eight of the Housing Act, 1921, or Section six of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, may, instead of being determined on the basis of the estimated annual loss resulting from the carrying out of the scheme in respect of which the payment is to be made, be determined either on the basis of the actual loss so resulting, or on the basis of the estimated annual loss so resulting, or on the basis of actual income and expenditure as respects some items required to be brought into account and on the basis of estimated income or expenditure as respects other such items;

(iv) of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health under the said Act in exercising any powers of a local authority, subject, however, to the recovery of those expenses from the local authority in the manner provided by the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)

8.0 p.m.
In view of the very long discussion which has taken place, the greater part of which concentrated around the financial provisions of the Bill, I think my task will now be light. As has been said, these financial provisions give effect to our proposals. The first provides for dealing with separate grants for clearances. Regarding the present administration, it is necessary to check the purchase and the sale and the destination of every piece of land carried out in connection with a local authority. It is also necessary to scrutinise whether a local authority acquires land for slums, or for
street widening or other improvements. Local authorities have asked that 50 per cent. should be abolished, and in doing this we are fulfilling one of their desires.
Clause 25 of the Bill, which we have not yet mentioned, provides for a periodical review of the amount of grant. A periodical review every three years was provided for in the original Housing Act of 1924. That was altered in the passage through the House to two years. We think now, as we thought then, that two years is too short a period, and we are proposing a review every three years. We do not give any estimate to the Committee of what the cost of this scheme will be. The Committee may consider that that is, perhaps, rather an unusual procedure, but, we do not know what the cost will be. If the response of the authorities is adequate the cost will be large, but if their response be a failure, it will cost nothing. There have been precedents in other Housing Bills in similar circumstances for the same action. The Bill of 1923, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), proceeded on the same lines. His Financial Resolution said:
The charges on the Exchequer consequent upon the Clauses of the Bill will depend upon the extent to which advantage is taken of the provisions proposed to be made.
He then gave a sort of total estimate. If 120,000 houses were to be built, the charge on the Exchequer would be so much. It is true that in that Act an estimate was given for the clearance of slums. The Treasury, forced to do the impossible, covered itself by saying they did not expect the call upon the Exchequer would exceed £250,000 a year. As a matter of fact, the highest present yearly cost is only £72,000. On the other hand, the housing memorandum on the Act of 1924 set out an elaborate schedule of cost. But in that case there were definite programmes.
With regard to the other Clauses, only a cursory reference to these will be necessary. With regard to rural houses it will be seen that the county council may contribute in certain cases, and must do so in other cases. This is a provision for spreading the cost, to a certain extent, over the county and no part of it will fall upon the Exchequer. Clause 38 provides for an alternative
method of paying the subsidy on what has been called the Addison houses. It was originally paid on an estimated annual loss, but that was found to be unsatisfactory. It is now paid on actual loss. We ask for powers to pay either by the one method or the other, or by a mixture of both. Sometimes one will be used, and sometimes the other. It will give us an opportunity to make, with the local authorities, regulations carrying out the intentions of Parliament in a way which corresponds with the actual state of affairs.
There is another Clause dealing with small houses—houses provided for aged persons under the Wheatley Act. We propose to give power to provide houses of a smaller size than was prescribed under the 1923 Act, on the condition that such houses are used for aged persons and so forth, and give, in respect of them, a smaller subsidy. The remaining Clauses alluded to in the financial provision include one dealing with the charges on the Exchequer. These Clauses largely deal with machinery. I think I have said as much as is necessary on this matter, and I hope that the Financial Resolution will be received with the same degree of amity as was the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: I would like to say that the change in the method of giving grants to local authorities with regard to slums is meeting with general satisfaction. It is common knowledge that there have been many conferences with local authorities, urban, county, and also London. As far as I am concerned, speaking for the London County Council, and with some 20 years' experience of slums, I believe that this new system will tend to speed up the machinery. I have a vivid recollection of the county council preparing plans, having to visit the Ministry of Health and have those plans criticised and altered, with consequent delay. Anything which will speed up the machinery is all to the good. I must, however, confess to some surprise, almost wonder, that when the Parliamentary Secretary put forward this Resolution she did not even attempt to put forward any kind of estimate as to the charge on the State. I am glad to see that we have such a reasonable Exchequer. I notice
that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is absent, and I understand that that means that the -Minister is going to have a free hand.
The success of the Bill will be judged by the amount of the call upon the Treasury. As far as I am concerned, I would have been more hopeful if the right hon. Gentleman had put forward a figure. I think it would have been a better sign. As I have said, I have had long experience of the machinery of local authorities. There is always a great blowing of trumpets and heating of drums when the first onslaught on the slums commences, but when we begin to count our gains we know that the results are small. I should have liked the Minister to have taken his courage in his hands and said he was prepared to spend not less than a certain amount of money in the next three years. He knows that these slums exist. Would it rot be wiser and fairer both to Parliament and to those people who live in the slums to say that he will not be content with failure, and that if local authorities fail to carry out their obligations and spent the necessary amount of money, then he will step in and do the work for them? In the Bill, in case of default, provision is made for the Minister to step in. We all know that enthusiasm varies. Unfortunately, it is not necessarily in the districts where most slums exist that you have the most enthusiastic authority, and so there is delay. The justification of the Bill and of the Financial Resolution, surely, is the results to be expected from the scheme, and before we pass this Resolution, Members, whether they are economists or, like myself, a bit reckless in this big battle against the slums, should know what figure we are aiming at. Is this a leap in the dark; is it in part a gamble? I should like to know that there is a more definite policy.
It may interest the Committee to know what has been happening in London during the last 10 years. Just after the War, when the Addison scheme was introduced and provision was made for cheapening the purchase of land, great hopes of big results were held out. After many months of waiting we have 26 areas in hand, involving 111 acres. That is all the result of nearly 10 years of effort. The population concerned in those areas numbers 30,000. It might sound a very
big thing if we could say that we bad rehoused 30.000 people, taking them from slums into pleasant neighbourhoods, but, as a matter of fact, we are only half-way through the battle. All sorts of difficulties have been encountered. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than anybody else that for the last two years we have been held up by what was called the Derby Judgment. That has ahanged the whole aspect of the battle against these areas, and I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether his new proposals for circumventing the Derby Judgment are to be retrospective. If not, some of these 111 acres will still remain slum-infested districts. In addition to that we have 90 other areas ready to be dealt with, and I believe that under these new proposals it will be practicable for us to expedite the work.
Will the Minister also tell me how far these new proposals apply to the boroughs? As I read them, they are only to apply to the county. A large number of boroughs in London have done very little. If the delightful City of Westminster, in winch this Palace is located, fails to tackle some of the plague spots which are within less than a mile of this House, will the right hon. Gentleman intervene, or are the county council to do the work for him? I am very pleased that the Ministry of Health have recognised that London and places like Liverpool have a special problem of their own. In big cities like London it is a far more difficult problem to shift the population from the centre to delightful places in the outskirts. In London a big effort has been made to take people out to Becontree, to Downham, and delightful suburban estates, but we have not been able to take out the worst-housed people from crowded areas like Shoreditch, Finsbury and Bermondsey. The families there exist largely on casual labour, their very life depends on being able to live near the centre, and what with the coat of the rail fare and the high rates it is almost impossible for them to move to any distance.
My experience has been that as soon as we have persuaded a few people to go further out, instead of the houses which they have vacated becoming available for neighbours, they are either immediately converted into factories or workshops, or the landlord, free from rent
control, immediately raises the rent, or charges £30 or £40 key money, a capital fine for entering into possession. The hon. Member for Battersea can confirm that this is happening in his district as well as mine. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how his financial proposals will help cases of that kind, because I am afraid there will be very little help. If a house remains fit for human habitation, there is nothing to prevent the landlord scoring in the way I have indicated through fresh housing accommodation having been found by the local authorities for some of the people.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might save some of the charge on his fund if he extended his rent restrictions to all houses in certain areas, at any rate where the population have been rehoused by the local authority. I have always felt that rent control should apply to the house and not to the person. So long as there is this housing shortage it is wrong to allow a few privileged landlords to profit. by the enterprise of local authorities. While the bulk of landlords are limited in what they can charge as rent, it is not fair that a privileged few should be able to profit by the fact that local authorities have built expensive housing schemes to take the people out of the rent-controlled houses, thus giving the landlords the opportunity of raising rents or converting the property into factories or workshops. So far as I am concerned, as a member of a local authority, I will do my best to spend the right hon. Gentleman's money, to dip into his pocket, in order to see as many as possible of these filthy, foul areas swept off the face of the land and replaced by new estates providing decent accommodation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will show that he is really in earnest, and make it clear to the local authorities that if they fail to do their duty be will do it for them. That will be a message of hope to people who have been condemned to live all these years in wretched hovels and who feel that lo years after the War these plague spots ought to be removed from the face of the land.

Mr. CHATER: As a new Member addressing the House for the first time I feel sure that I Shall receive the indulg-
ence which is usually extended to one in my position. Criticism of the financial provisions of the Bill will probably run in the direction of suggesting that too much money is being asked for, rather than too little, and I am concerned to put one or two points to the Minister on the line that the money is not sufficient rather than that it is excessive. The Minister has expressed his desire to prevent certain areas becoming slum areas. In my own constituency I can easily visualise two very large roads, each containing probably 200 houses, where rents are of such an excessive character that in some cases they are two and three times the pre-War rent. The result is that these people have developed, quite naturally, a mentality of absolute hopelessness, because the rents are so excessive in their character that they begin to lose all hope of bettering themselves, and the result of that mentality is that they lose all pride in the houses which they inhabit. I see no provision in this Bill to deal with that point.
It is no use imagining that the provisions of the new Bill will help in that direction, because, whatever happens under the provisions of the new arrangement, it must be a somewhat slow process. First of all, you have to find alternative accommodation for the people who will be displaced, and that cannot be done in too rapid a fashion. The people to whom I refer are fixed to the spot which they inhabit, first, on account of the fact that they must live near their work; and, secondly, because there is no other place provided for them, even if they can afford to pay a higher rent, I hope the Minister will not hesitate to take into consideration the possibility of doing something to relieve the people who suffer from extortionate rents. It is some five months since I gave the Ministry of Health accurate and intimate details of certain cases in my constituency, and I do not doubt that those instances are typical of those existing in all the great cities and towns of this country.
My second point is that we are very anxious to prevent roads like those which I have in mind becoming slum areas. because they contain very substantial houses. The construction of them is very good, and far superior to some of the
houses that are likely to be built in the near future. The buildings ate good and the woodwork is good, but thy have got into a bad condition on account of the heavy rents which the people have to pay. Under one of the Clauses of the present Bill, the Minister of Health takes power to say to the owners of such houses, "You must put your property immediately in a good condition and make it habitable from the point of view of toe standard which the local authority is going to lay down." The point I want to make, and which I am anxious to emphasise, is that, if the right hon. Gentleman puts no provision in the Bill and those repairs are completed, there is nothing; more sure than that the landlord will raise the rent in proportion to the cost of the repairs. In my constituency, that would be nothing short of a calamity, and I hope that, in some way or other, the Minister will take financial power to deal with a position of that kind; otherwise, the very thing which he wishes to prevent will be continued, and the development of those areas, which are not yet slum areas, must become slum areas if some such provisions as I have suggested are not inserted in the Bill to deal with those conditions.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I have not risen to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I have decided to speak upon the Motion. I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Mr. Chater) upon his maiden speech. He has not had the privilege which was accorded to the hon. Members who made maiden speeches yesterday of having a crowded House. I remember an old Member of Parliament saying "Do not worry if you have not a big audience on the Floor of the House; remember the galleries are always full and there may be one person in the gallery from your constituency who will go back and say that his representative stood up manfully and faced the empty benches." When the hon. Member for South Hammersmith reads his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I am sure he will agree that his maiden effort was a good one, showing a great knowledge of his subject and real sincerity.
I am interested in this Financial Resolution, because I have had a considerable experience as a member of a local authority in dealing with the financial side of many Acts of Parliament which have been
passed from time to time, and then pushed on to the local authority to administer. I am wondering where we stand in regard to the Motion. There is a sort of mystery surrounding the financial provisions of this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to give us a reasonable explanation of this Resolution. I do not wish to detract from the way in which she presented this question to the House. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) that it would have been better if we had had a representative of the Treasury on the Front Bench. I know that the Minister of Health will deal with our arguments, but the right hon. Gentleman has a very heavy task in hand, and he might have had a little relief from someone representing the Treasury, and that would have given a little more satisfaction to members of the Committee.
The hon. Lady said that no doubt it was a question of speculation as to the amount of expenditure that would be involved, and she gave as an excuse for not giving the amount that the late Minister of Health, when he introduced a certain Housing Bill, set a bad example by saying that he could not estimate the amount that he would require. Speaking not as a party man, but, as a general critic, I should say that the late Minister of Health was wrong and that the hon. Lady is equally wrong in using the same argument. I think we should have had something more definite from the Parliamentary Secretary and from the Minister of Health with regard to the amount of money that is likely to be required for this particular purpose.
A great difference of opinion has been expressed by experts on housing who are Members of this House as to how these housing schemes are likely to work out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has his own ideas about this matter. I do not say whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or wrong, but his idea is that these proposals will work out altogether different from the ideas which are held on the Treasury Bench. Members on this side of the House have also expressed a difference of opinion on this question. I want to know which opinions are right, and we certainly ought to have more information as regards the amount of
money which is involved in this Resolution. I agree that the question of clearing away the slums is not a party question, and that has been shown by the fact that the Second Reading of the Bill has been passed without a Division. We think that the objects of the Bill are very desirable. [Interruption.] I claim to be as sincere in my views of this Measure as any hon. Member of this House.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: ; I was not doubting the sincerity of the hon. Member; I was waiting for his "but."

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am not in the habit of using that word at all. I repeat that we have had evidence during this Debate that this is not by any means a party question. I agree with hon. Members opposite that it is very desirable that we should remove the slums from our large towns, and when, yesterday, an hon. Member on these benches talked about retaining back-to-back houses, if I could have got the chance I should have told him that I did not agree with that at all, and I will tell the Committee the reason why. Anyone who has had to live in such houses—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): The hon. Member must not tell us the reason why now.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: If the hon. Memher in question had had to live in such houses, or in some of the terrace houses in the City of Hull, he would not be so desirous of continuing that state of affairs. We realise, however, that the heavy financial obligations which have to be faced have been paramount in discussions on this question from time to time, and the reason why there has been delay in dealing with this great problem has been that fact, and also the fact that you must provide alternative accommodation before you displace people. We all understand that people even in a very had house are better there than with no house at all, and they will tell you so—

The CHAIRMAN: The Money Resolution applies to charges on the Exchequer. We have now passed for the moment the immediate discussion of the merits of the Bill.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Yes. Sir, but the financial aspect has a good deal to do
with certain points that I am bringing forward, and I will pass to the expenditure side. The local authorities view this question of expenditure with some concern, because we feel that, although Parliament passes the Acts, we have to administer them. Parliament is constantly passing on to our shoulders the financial burden of carrying on the various Acts of Parliament that are put upon the Statute Book, and we are helpless, because we are told that we have to do it. We have heavy expenditure coming along in connection with education. It certain proposals which the Government have foreshadowed come to pass, there will be an enormous addition to the burden of the local authorities, and I suggest that the local authorities cannot stand much more of it. Therefore, I am disappointed that we have not more generous provisions even than those in this Bill, as far as relieving the local authorities of their obligations is concerned.
When we consider the growth of local expenditure on services that have been thrown upon the local authorities by Parliament, we find it to be astounding. Taking the figures for the year 1926–27, which are the latest figures available, the expenditure was no less than £519,000,000. That is three times the amount that was spent in 1913–14. Deducting the expenditure on loans and so on, but still including the loss of revenue on departments that are supposed to be revenue-earning, even then the total expenditure of local authorities comes to £283,000,000, and, as regards the charges on loan accounts. that money has to be expended in connection with local affairs. Putting that against the figure of £104,500,000 for 1913–14, the committee will begin to realise what a heavy burden the local authorities have to carry at the moment, and that burden comes heaviest on the shoulders of the poorer ratepayers. It bears more hardly upon them than upon the wealthy one, and, if you talk to the people in the towns, you will find that those who complain most bitterly are those who are least able to pay. The figures, which are easily procured, showing the number of rate summonses that have to be issued in our large towns and cities year after year, make one think it is time that something was done to try to reduce this expenditure.
I am not suggesting that money spent on such an object as this, or on many social services which are absolutely necessary for the health and comfort of the people, is ill-spent, but I say that there is a great differensi between extravagance and wise spending, and that is where we ought to be careful. Take the case of our public health services. In spite of the fact that the National Health Insurance Act is on the Statute Book, we are still spending £35,000,000 a year on these services, as against something like £13,000,000 in 1913–14. Nobody can say that the local authorities are not doing their fair share as regards these services whic:1 the people so much desire.
Comming to purely local expenditure, for which we get no gran[...] from the Treasury, such as Poor Law relief, in spite of the fact that we have Pensions Acts on the Statute Book, and that war pensions are being paid and unemployment relief works established from time to time, we paid, in 1927–28, over £42,000,000, as against something over £12,000,000 in 1913–14. I suggest, therefore, that the local authorities are doing their fair share in regard to the social services of this country, and that they ought at any rate to have some fair consideration from the Treasury in these matters.
Going a little further along the line, let us look at our great national expenditure. Although these proposals are very desirable, they are still going to be a charge on both national and local expenditure. I am not suggesting that we should not carry on with this Bill, but that there should be some control over the expenditure, and also that a desperate effort should be made to economise in other directions that can be suggested at the right time. Taking the local and national expenditure together—and this is the right way to look at the facts, because the money comes out of pretty much the same pocket in the long run—we find that in 1913–14 the total of local and national expenditure was about £277,000,000. In 1926–27 the figure had jumped to £1,021,000,000.
When these figures are carefully studied, they are pretty startling, and they ought to receive the consideration of Members in all quarters of the House.
It is not a question of saying that if you talk about economy you are of necessity opposed to social reform. There is such a thing as the old gadget that is used as at municipal elections, "Economy with Efficiency." Although it is an old gadget, it is as true to-day as ever it was. I am all in favour of reasonable progressive reform in the way of social services, but I do say that from the mere fact that you spend money it does not always follow that you get service for it. It is easy to spend money, but it is another thing to get value for it, and to see that the people get the best out of it.
I would like to call the attention of the House to a statement made in today's "Times" calling attention to a resolution passed by the General Federation of Trade Unions. This is what they say:
Whatever social improvements are effected have to be paid for by efforts. It foolish to expect that the social improvements of many millions can continuously be paid for by exactions from the wealth of a few thousand. However desirable it may be to secure a fairer distribution of wealth, it is fatal to national prosperity to eat up that capital which is necessary to finance present and future production.
I commend that resolution to the Members of the House, and I think it is worth their while to consider it. It is not a question of merely coming from this side of the House. It has come from a very good source.
After that little preface let us now come to the Bill and see exactly where we stand as regards its financial provisions. The most ardent housing reformer ought to give the most careful consideration to the financial side of it, because its success or failure depends on whether those financial conditions are right or wrong. It is not a question of saying, "There is a heap of money. Go and spend it." That will not do any good if it is not spent in a right and proper way. What were the original subsidies under the Housing Acts? This Motion clearly points out that there is a great difference between the system which will operate under this Act and former Acts. I was rather puzzled at the figures the hon. Lady gave us, but I take it they are official and they are probably right and mine wrong. The subsidy under the
1923 Act, as far as I can gather, is £6 per year per house for 20 years. I work that out to a total capital of £20 per house. Under the 1924 Act, which was a little more generous, as regards the subsidy in urban districts, it was £9 per house per year for 40 years, and I work that out to bring in something like £360. In the rural areas it was £12 10s. per house per year for 10 years, and I work that out at something like £500 per house, which is a pretty generous contribution. In September, 1927, the subsidies were reduced and brought down, as far as the 1923 houses are concerned, to something like £80 per house. But still, even with the reduced subsidy, it is something like £300 on the urban and £440 on rural houses built under the Wheatley Act. We had a further reduction in 1928. I have quoted these figures as a comparison in order to see where we stand under this Bill. The hon. Lady said she gave a figure quoting for a family of five, and the right hon. Gentleman yesterday quoted a figure dealing with a family of five. So I take it they regard that as a fair average family figure. We are going to have 45s. per person for 40 years, and I work that out at £11 5s. per year, so that local authorities will get £450. Is that right or wrong? The hon. Lady quoted a figure a little different, I think.

Miss LAWRENCE: When you are comparing terminable annuities of different amounts for different periods, it is extremely misleading simply to multiply the amount by the number of years. An annuity of £6 for 40 years is not worth twice as much as an annuity of £6 for 20 years. You have to take compound interest into consideration.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: The hon. Lady cannot make 40 years payment at £11 5s. anything more or less than £450. We want to know where we are. Hon. Members will not smile when they get back to their local authorities if they cannot explain what the hon. Lady means. We want to know what our commitments are before we pass the Resolution. Rural houses are going to get something like £12 10s. a year with a family of five. Then you get to London and the larger provincial cities where you have these tenement houses. I work it out that the local authorities will get something like
£17 10s. a year for 40 years for a family of five. Then we get to the difficult point as to how this money is going to be applied. The hon. Lady said it would be left to the local authorities to decide as they think fit. They can have differential rating, and they can use it for providing houses for single people as well as for married couples. That is not a fair thing to put upon the shoulders of the local authorities. We know that local authorities have asked for more freedom in dealing with these matters. I can visualise a housing committee having to deal with applicants and to state what one person shall pay, and what another person shall pay for practically the same type of house. The task will not be a very easy one, because the very first person to grumble will be the working man who has himself to pay a much higher rent, realising that as a ratepayer he is having to provide his quota towards a cheaper house for someone else.
We have had previous Housing Acts. One at any rate was an utter failure, but not because this House refused to provide sufficient financial support, because if ever there was an Act of Parliament that was costly it was the Addison Act. I am quoting that in support of my contention that it is not a question of how much we vote so much as how carefully the money that is voted is expended. That is why I say the House ought to keep some control over this expenditure, and ought not to give a blank cheque to any Minister. I do not think it is in the best interests of the country that it should be so done. Take that Act for which the House so generously voted large sums of money. They talked then about building 500,000 houses, and they were going to cost anything from £250 to £400 each, and many of them cost over £1,000, simply because the cost of building went up with a rush because of this special push that was put forward from all sides, and there was a shortage of labour and materials. Eventually the then Minister of Health had to leave the office and someone else took charge and stopped building for the time, in fact wound up the scheme. In spite of the generous financial provision, that scheme was of no great use, and some of the very houses that cost such large sums
of money are bordering on slum houses to-day. [An HON. MEMBER[...] Is that in Grimsby?"] We have none in Grimsby. We have a sensible town council. By merely voting money we are not always going to get the thing we desire. It all depends on the good will with which people try to carry out the provisions. I remember reading—I was not in the House at the time—that the right hon. Gentleman who was deposed from his position said he regarded this as a betrayal of the solemn pledges of the Coalition Government to the people. He was rather cross about his chief, the Prime Minister, of that day, and he said that the right hon. Gentleman was more responsible for the stoppage of these efforts—housing and slum clearance—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Motion which is before the Committee. I have already told him that on a Money Resolution discussion must be confined to the charges upon the Exchequer.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I was trying to show that this House voted money in a generous spirit, because hon. Members were inclined to be generous when dealing with problems which they wanted to solve. I was endeavouring to point out that, although the House did give that money without any restriction whatever, it did not effect the purpose which the House had in mind. I was also pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman tried to put the blame on to ocher peoples. shoulders. I hope, when I move my Amendment later on, to receive the support of hon. Members opposite who feel as keenly as I do that this House shoulct retain control over financial expenditure of every kind. The principle has been laid down that we should not allow any Department to spend the nation's money without Parliamentary sanction. To give a blank cheque to any Minister or to any Department, however desirable the object may be, is a Wrong principle to adopt.

Mr. ISAACS: The hon Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has several times repeated the statement that this Motion asks the House to give power to the Minister to spend money. One would assume that it brings about a method of
control of public finance which has not previously operated. I presume that any money which is voted as the result of this Motion will come under the control of the House in exactly the same way as money required by other Departments has done. The non. Gentleman made reference to certain houses which were provided under a previous scheme, which, he said, had deteriorated into slums.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I did not say slums; I said bordering on them.

Mr. ISAACS: The hon. Member ought to give more information on that matter, so that it can be clocked.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be out of order. He must deal with the Financial Resolution. Under this Resolution, hon. Members are not entitled to discuss the merits of the Bill or the demerits of past Bills.

Mr. ISAACS: This is only the second time I have addressed the House, and, naturally, I find myself in some difficulty. I shall try as hard as I can to keep in order. I wish to apply myself especially to paragraphs (i a) and (i b) of the Motion. Paragraph (i a) makes provision for money from the Treasury for the purpose of housing persons displaced from houses, and paragraph (i b) for money in connection with rehousing schemes which deal with buildings of more than three storeys on the site of a clearance area. The Treasury by providing this money will enable many authorities to tackle the housing problem which previously, probably through lack of financial assistance, have been unable to do so.
9.0 p.m.
I represent a borough with a very large population. It is one of the two boroughs in London which have not built a house. This may be because of the high cost of land, but under a provision such as this that borough may find it possible to build houses and so relieve the people of the tremendous burden under which they are at present suffering. It would be possible, if it were in order, to quote to the Committee a number of instances of overcharging of rent, and to give details of the overcrowding, which, we hope, the extra financial provisions now proposed will enable the locality to overcome.
The Minister, in answering the Debate on the previous Motion, referred to the question of differential rents. The provision of money by this Resolution will make those differential rents possible, and the provision of differential rents will make the provision of housing accommodation possible by local authorities. I could quote to the Committee a number of instances of five, six, seven, eight, and up to eleven persons living in one room because they cannot afford to pay a higher rent. This provision enabling accommodation to be provided for those people based upon a grant on the number of persons will give them an opportunity of getting a house which otherwise would be denied to them.

The CHAIRMAN: This Resolution does not enable the Government to do that; that is a matter for the Bill. The Bill would enable the Government to do that. We are discussing now whether the charges on the Exchequer are sufficient or insufficient.

Mr. ISAACS: If that is the line I must take, I wish that the amount to be provided could have been considerably more, and then a good deal more could have been done. Just as the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) argued that too much money would be expended and indicated his intention to move an Amendment in some way to restrict the purposes of the Motion, I claim that the Motion before us is worthy of our support inasmuch as it enables far more to be done than otherwise could he done, and I regret that we cannot get more money out of the Treasury and so be able to do more.

Captain CAZALET: I hope to be more successful than the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) in keeping in order. I think it is clear to the Committee now why no Member of the Treasury is present during this discussion. Obviously, the reason is that there is really no Financial Resolution before the Committee. The Treasury has simply handed a blank cheque to the Ministry of Health. It is a very unusual, unprecedented and a very generous action on the part of the Treasury. The Bill empowers the Ministry of Health to do two things—to sanction schemes and to pay. There have been various
opinions expressed yesterday and to-day as to how the financial provisions of the Bill are going to work out in practice. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has put the matter extraordinarily clear. If I understand her aright, the method under which the contributions will be given by the Ministry of Health and the manner in which they will be spent is that there will be a subsidy per head given in respect of each individual removed from a slum area to some other part of the town or the surrounding country districts. That money, whatever the sum may be, will be handed over en bloc to the local authority, and the local authority will be entitled to use that money in any manner that they like, provided that it is being used for the accommodation of individuals who come from some slum area. It may be that it will be used in reducing the rents of the houses built under the Wheatley scheme. It may be used for putting up smaller houses for aged couples, or it may be used for building what we have been asked not to call tenements but fiats, in which I presume single individuals—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to ask questions and to criticise the different grants of £2 10s. or £2 5s. or £3 10s., but the merits of the Bill are not now under consideration.

Captain CAZALET: With deference, I was only putting it in my way—

The CHAIRMAN: If I allowed the hon. and gallant Member to put it in that way, hon. Members will want to put it their way. We must keep to the Financial Resolution.

Captain CAZALET: I was really asking a question of the Parliamentary Secretary. She dealt with this point when she was speaking on the financial proposals of the Bill. Am I right in the conclusion that I have drawn from her remarks? I want to draw attention to the question of the building of flats or tenements, because the grant to be given in respect of each person who is removed from some congested area, to houses in tenements will be a very much bigger grant than if they had been moved to some of the Wheatley houses in an outlying part of the country.
In London, especially, when this scheme is put into practice it will be Lund absolutely necessary to build more of these tenement buildings than exist to-day, and my point is that the subsidy which the Exchequer will have to grant mill be bigger than it is expected Lo be. 1 make this assumption because I em certain that it will be found that a very large proportion of the people living in a congested area find their work in factories businesses within a radius of a mile or so of the place where they now and, such are the conditions of travel in London and such is the impossibility of getting these people adequate and cheap enough transport, the only possible way of not depriving them of their livelihood will be to erect tenement buildings or flat accommodation in the locality of the cleared areas where they are living to-day. We must provide adequate accommodation for single individuals.

The CHAIRMAN: The provision of accommodation for single individuals or more individuals is not now under discussion. That will be dealt with by the terms of the Bill. There may be Amendments suggested by the hon. and gallant Member or other hon. Members when the Bill is under discussion. At the moment, all that is before the Committee is the Financial Resolution, and the hon. and gallant Member must apply himself to the Financial Resolution only.

Captain CAZALET: There is no definite finance before us. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that this is an experiment. If there are 100,000 people involved, then the sum will be so much larger, or if there are 200,000 or 500,000 people involved, the sum will accordingly be increased. I am trying to show that the sum will be increased because the number of single individuals for whom places will have to be found will be such that suitable accommodation can only be found for them in tenement buildings. The reason for my argument that a greater sum will be required is that we have in this country a surplus population of 2,000,000 women who, until we alter the marriage law, will never be able to alter their state of life. They have to find work to-day, and they N.-ill claim that suitable accommodation should be found for them under this Act. I do not know how the financial provisions of this Bill
will meet the case which the London County Council has experienced many times in dealing with slum clearance, namely, that there are large numbers of houses in various parts of London for which they can find no owners, owing to the fact that the houses have for a period of years fallen into a bad state of repair and the owners are not prepared to come forward and put them in order.

The CHAIRMAN: Again, I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to apply himself to the finance. There may be property the owners of which cannot be found, but that has nothing to do with the Financial Resolution.

Captain CAZALET: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how she would meet this situation, and whether she would be prepared to assist the local authorities in a case of that kind against damages in respect of some owner who thought the property had been—

The CHAIRMAN: That is a point that could be raised on the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: Would it not save cost to the scheme to get land for nothing?

The CHAIRMAN: It is not my duty to express an opinion.

Captain CAZALET: I was coming to that point. If some financial provision could be included in the Bill, that where these cases occur—I know that they are genuine eases that the London County Council have met with—it would to a certain extent limit the expenditure necessary under this Act. Now, I pass to the question of compensation. That, surely, has something to do with finance, and I cannot be out of order in saying a few words on it.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is not in order on the Money Resolution in arguing whether compensation should be paid or not. He can do that on the Bill. He can move the insertion of provisions for that purpose in the Bill, but he cannot discuss it on the Financial Resolution. The question is whether the amount of money is sufficient for the purposes of the Bill. If he cares, he can allude to the various figures and criticise the various amounts, but he cannot discuss matters which will arise on the Bill itself.

Captain CAZALET: I apologise fox having caused you to rise so often. It is very hard not to overstep the bounds of your Ruling, especially as we do not know what amount of money is involved. That is where we are in a difficult position. I hope that whatever amount of money may be necessary will be forthcoming and that by the provision of that money and its expenditure by the local authorities this problem, which has been handed down to us by our ancestors, will be largely remedied so that we may hand on to future generations a better state of affairs in regard to housing than exists at the present time.

Dr. FORGAN: There seems to be some anxiety amongst hon. Members opposite lest too much money is to be spent on the provisions of this Bill. The anxiety of some of us on these benches is lest too little of the money to be provided will be used for this purpose. To my mind the weak point in the Bill is that so much depends on what local authorities are going to do. An hon. Member opposite referred to the launching of this war upon slums, attended by the beating of drums. A sum of £105,000,000 was voted the other week in preparation for another war—

The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this Resolution. The hon. Member must obey the rulings I have given. The Money Resolution deals with the finance for this particular purpose.

Dr. FORGAN: I will certainly abide by your ruling, but the amount of money foreshadowed in this Financial Memorandum for this war on slums is less than one-four-hundreth part of the sum voted two weeks ago by this House for another purpose. Therefore we need not regard this as too generous a provision. I congratulate the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary on having got what is almost a blank cheque from the Treasury. There is a sketch in it of an idea that possibly £250,000 for the first year followed by a similar sum each year is a maximum.

Miss LAWRENCE: indicated dissent.

Dr. FORGAN: The hon. Lady shakes her head. If it is assumed that 20,000 persons will be dispossessed and rehoused, that assumption is based upon what has been happening in the past. Up to now £75,000 per annum is all that
the Treasury has contributed towards slum clearances each year. Compare that with the suggestion made in the Financial Memorandum, which I take it must have some bearing on probabilities. If we take it that the forecast of expenditure by the Exchequer of £250,000 a year is to be added to each year by a similar sum, then at the end of 10 years' time not only will the Treasury be spending £2,500,000 a year but local authorities will be spending a sum one hundred times their average annual expenditure during the last 10 years. That means that a very heavy burden is to be placed upon local authorities in years to come if they endeavour to carry out the provisions of this Bill, and I am much afraid that local authorities will not face up to that burden.
The Minister of Health has said that a 50 per cent. Government contribution in his opinion is inadequate, as it would impose too heavy a burden on local authorities. If a 50 per cent. contribution is inadequate, he is now proposing to impose on local authorities a burden scores of times greater, and if 50 per cent. or 70 per cent. is inadequate, we shall eventually arrive at a situation where we shall have to give a 100 per cent. grant, and it will then be desirable to take the question of slums out of the hands of local authorities altogether. What I have said is not meant in disparagement of the Bill itself. I regard it as a valuable instrument in the hands of local authorities, which, if they make full use of it, will contribute materially to getting rid of these blots on our civilisation.

Mr. GRAY: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a moment, and I hope I shall be successful in keeping my remarks entirely within the Money Resolution. I want to ask the Committee to consider two points. The first is the rate for rural houses of £2 10s. as compared with the rate of £2 5s. for non-rural houses, and I want to suggest that the difference is not enough. If you are going to meet the problem of rural housing you will have to increase the grant for rural houses to a much larger amount than the 5s. difference between £2 5s. and £2 10s. In my opinion you will have to get somewhat nearer to the sum you are providing for the purely slum clearances and areas where tenement
houses are erected. When you are dealing with rural houses you will have to face the position that you are dealing with the provision of houses for tenants who can only pay a very small rent, and who have only been accustomed to pay a small amount of rent. If you are going to provide adequate housing accommodation for our country villages you must meet the gap that is necessary TO enable these houses to be let at low rents. The difference which the Minister has provided, as between £2 10s. and £2 5s. is not sufficient, and the first amount should be increased if not to the full amount on the slum area, at any rate to at least £3 per person.
The other point, which so far has not been referred to, is the date from which these sums are to be paid. Are they going to be paid from the inception of the scheme, from the time when the local authority commences to deal with the area, or from the time when the persons actually take possession of the houses? That may be a very important and serious consideration to the local authority. It may not be so serious when you are dealing with one or two houses, but if you are dealing with a large clearance area it may be some considerable time from the period when you purchase the land and the date at which you begin to house the people. I should be glad if the Minister will make it clear from what date these sums are to be actually paid.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: We have been asked by hon. Members opposite whether in this Resolution we propose to fix the amount which will be available for the purposes of this particular Measure. I hope the Minister will resist any invitation addressed to him to state any definite sum for the purpose of these proposals. I agree with the final words of his speech yesterday, when he said that he was anxious to place upon local authorities the responsibility of working this Measure to the utmost possible extent. Whatever figure he might quote, some hon. Members will be sure to question it and say it was too much or too little. Local authorities in the past have not spent enough on this vital matter of rehousing the people, and if they feel that there is no unreasonable limit to their activities—not that there is a blank cheque which is likely to lead to ex-
travagance—the Bill is likely to be far more useful than if a definite figure was stated. The hon. Member for Islington North (Mr. R. S. Young) raised an important point which I do not see provided for in this Money Resolution. He pointed to what I think every hon. Member will agree is a very notable gap in the Bill—

The CHAIRMAN: If there is a gap in the Bill it must be put in order in Committee; not now. Whatever is put in the Bill will be covered by the terms of the Financial Resolution.

Mr. WINTERTON: Of course, I acknowledge the difficulty of asking the Minister whether he has any money other than what he is here providing, but I would ask him whether this Financial Resolution in any way provides for the temporary accommodation which may have to be made while the area is being cleared, and, if not, whether any such proposal can be made in connection with this Resolution? I would like to associate myself with the hon. Member on the benches opposite who made an inquiry as to the amount which is to be granted in connection with the scheme for rural housing. I notice that in his speech the Minister suggested that this provision was to be confined to agricultural workers, and I want to ask him in regard to the proposed grants—I see the words used are:
so far as regards persons displaced from houses in an agricultural parish"—
whether those words will apply, say, to a rural district council or an urban district council or to any other than those Who are specifically employed in the agricultural industry? I ask that question, because the shortage of houses is by no means confined to agricultural labourers. There are many mining villages which are a disgrace so far as housing accommodation is concerned. I would like to ask the Minister whether this expression in the Bill includes any others than agricultural workers? There is one Clause in the Bill on which at a later stage I shall wish to say something more definite. I should have been very much better pleased with the Bill if Clause 11 had not seemed to invade the amount of money available for the purpose of compensating the great number of licensed houses which will be affected by the Bill. I do not propose to enter
into that matter in detail, but I could have hoped that better machinery for dealing with the licences which are to be dealt with would have been devised, because there will be a very large invasion of the money available.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing the merits of the Bill. That is not permissible on a Money Resolution. If he will read the Resolution, he will see that the words he quoted are immediately followed by conditions affecting non-agricultural parishes

Mr. WINTERTON: I thank you, Mr. Young, for calling my attention to this matter. I think that the discussions which have been taking place as to improvements in our procedure, are fully vindicated by the experience of some of us in our endeavour to keep to this Resolution. I shall be glad if the Minister will answer the definite points which I have put to him, and I should like to congratulate him upon this very admirable Bill and the Financial Resolution connected with it.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think we ought to pass this Financial Resolution without asking the Minister to give us a little more information concerning it. We are now dealing with purely the financial side of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has now secured a unanimous Second Reading for the Bill from the House. I hope no one will misinterpret what I venture to suggest is a proper attitude for the House of Commons in connection with the financial side of the Measure, and that is to put some questions and ask the Committee to consider the financial implications of this particular proposal. I do not think anyone will quarrel with me or dispute the suggestion that this Financial Resolution makes new and unlimited calls both upon the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the country. So far as I can ascertain from the proposal which is now before the Committee, there is no attempt being made to estimate the cost. The matter is purely hypothetical.
If the view be taken that this Measure will be a considerable success, then I think anyone who sits in any quarter of the House is entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he anticipates will be the calls upon the Exchequer during
the next financial year and exactly what his hopes are from the point of view of new houses. I apprehend myself that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening his Budget next week, will have to give some estimate as to what the cost of this Measure is likely to be. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health may be able to indicate to-night exactly what he hopes in regard to this particular proposal. I do not think I shall be making a statement which anyone would question, when I say that, if the financial provisions of this Bill are based on a sound scheme and the money is wisely and carefully spent, that money will not be grudged in any quarter of the House, because certainly while it costs a considerable sum of money to replace, rebuild, and to clear slums, a still larger expense arises from the ill-health and inefficiency due to people having to live in slums at the present time. We undoubtedly pay a large bill every year for the increasing physical and mental deficiency, and the decline in energy and self-reliance which unfortunately arises from slum conditions.
I do not think anyone will misunderstand me if I remind the Committee that we have to consider our whole social expenditure in regard to the state of our trade and industry and the other corn-filaments which this country has already made in connection with what we call our social services. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the other day, put the matter very well. He said it was very difficult indeed to say "no" to each individual proposition that was put before the Committee in connection with the requirements for unemployment, for housing, and for matters of that kind, but that the net result of it all was that we were piling up a very considerable bill. I think the words which the right hon. Gentleman uttered on that occasion were words to which we ought to have some regard in considering any further cost which is being asked for in connection with matters of this sort. My only regret is that the right hon. Gentleman's followers, on that occasion, did not come up to the expectations which their leader had aroused when he made those observations. The country looks to the House of Commons at this time
to have regard, not only to the need of housing but also to the cost, and during the last few years we have, undoubtedly, witnessed an extraordinary increase in the expenditure on our social services. If we examine the figures for the last 40 years we shall find that we call social expenditure is now some 16 times what it was at the beginning of that period. In 1891 we were spending £22,000,000 on social services, and in 1928 that figure had risen to £365,000,000. One is bound to look at this position from the point of view of trade and industry—

Mr. PALIN: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Young, to the fact that there is no reference to trade and industry in the Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the burden on the country will be increased by the specific expenditure which is dealt with in the Financial Resolution.

Mr. PALIN: I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was stealing the horse where we dare not look through the gate.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in that figure of £365,000,000, he is not including the whole of the expenditure on the armed forces, on the Post Office and in respect of the Civil Service generally.

Sir K. WOOD: I thought that question might be asked and if the hon. Member refers to the White Paper recently issued by the Stationery Office, in which all these figures of social expenditure are dealt with, I think he will find that I am correct. Let me say at once, however, that all I am desirous of doing at this moment—and I have followed the course of Financial Resolutions for many years is to ask the Committee to consider this aspect of the question.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for interrupting him again? I have the figures here. and I find that the total expenditure in respect of the Civil Service and Revenue Departments—the Post Office, being one of them—is a figure not of £365,000,000. but of £258,000,000.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member will no doubt have an opportunity of making his own observations in reply to me, and I think he will find, on going into the matter, that the expenditure on social services, exclusive of the Army and the Navy and the Post Office, is the figure which I have mentioned. If, however, I am not right in my figure, I am sure that the hon. Member will be one of the first to correct me. Even if he reduces the figure which I have given by £100,000,000, he will still find that the rise has been very considerable indeed—and that is all I am endeavouring to emphasise. I point out these facts, not by way of endeavouring to prevent this Motion being passed, but in order to recall to the Committee the direction in which we are travelling and the important effect of these financial commitments upon our trade and industry and also upon unemployment in this country.
I do not think there is anyone who has listened to the speeches constantly made both in the House of Commons and outside it by the Lord Privy Seal, who would say that the question of national and local taxation is not related to the problem of unemployment. No one has emphasised more than the Lord Privy Seal the connection between these matters, and in considering this Motion we cannot overlook the fact that we are adding to our commitments. We may do it quite willingly and with the best desire in the world, but we should not forget that in Great Britain our taxation per head of the population is already very considerable as compared with that of our foreign competitors.
When by such commitments as this we are adding to the burdens of this country, we might usefully spend a little time—having disposed of the Second Reading of this Bill—in considering a matter which is equally important from the point of view of the slum dweller. Apart from the natural desire of the slum dweller to obtain good housing accommodation, he desires, above all, to get employment in order that he may pay for it; and we ought not to forget that Great Britain to-day is spending £14 per head per year in this respect, while the United States is spending some £6 per head and Germany some £5 10s. per head. When, quite legitimately and properly, we proceed to add to our com-
mitments as we are doing by this Motion, these matters ought to be taken into account.
I hope no one will say that that is an improper subject to bring before the Committee on this occasion, when, on every hand, we are endeavouring to ascertain the reason for the large amount of unemployment in this country and when we are all seeking—no one more than the Lord Privy Seal—to find plans for mitigating the tremendous figure of unemployment with which we are now faced. In connection with a Financial Resolution of this kind, we ought to consider not only national, but local expenditure in general. No one who is asking the Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman is doing—quite properly in my opinion—to commit itself to a further increase of social expenditure, can overlook the fact that local expenditure is also pressing hardly upon trade and industry and upon the mass of our people. If hon. Members turn to the Blanesburgh Committee's Report—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman himself must be aware of the fact that while, on this Motion, he may refer in general terms to certain expenditure, he must refer to it and pass on, but he is not entitled to go into the details of the Blanesburgh Committee's Report and such matters as that.

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid you misunderstood me, owing perhaps to my lack of experience, but I was endeavouring to point out that, in addition to a consideration of the cost of national taxation, we must consider the burden of local taxation as well. Great Britain is undoubtedly having to pay a very much larger bill in the cost of local taxation than are many of its foreign competitors. I will only give, by way of illustration, two figures in that connection. When you consider the burden of local taxation per head of the population, so far as Great Britain is concerned, you have a sum of £3 17s., as compared with £1 17s. 6d. in Germany.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: On a point of Order. Will it be in order to debate the figures showing the difference between the cost of living in Germany and in this country?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is only entitled to refer to expenditure as being so much, and then to pass on.

Sir K. WOOD: I may say that I am now going to pass on from that matter. All that I desire to say, in the spirit and almost in the words of the Lord Privy Seal, is that we have to realise that industry is the sole ultimate source from which all classes of individuals derive their livelihood, and much as we may commend the objects for which this Financial Resolution is required, we must not overlook this important aspect of the national situation. I would like to have referred, not to any partisan report from the headquarters of either the Conservative or the Liberal organisation, but to a report which is very germane to our discussions to-night, and that is a report issued by the General Federation of Trade Unions, which has recently examined this question.

The CHAIRMAN: I am at a loss to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

Sir K. WOOD: I will endeavour to meet that point. The point I have in mind is this—and on no occasion has the right of any Member of the House been challenged to enter into it—that when we are asked to commit ourselves in Committee to a considerable sum, as this may well he, we are entitled to review our present national and local commitments in taxation, and—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I could not allow any such review. It might take all night without relation to the Resolution before us.

Sir K. WOOD: I must point out that the question of how long such a consideration might take is hardly germane to the matter. I do not want it to be thought, because I have brought these matters before the Committee, that I am unsympathetic to the proposal which is being made. I do not think the Minister can complain of the support which his proposals have received, but I shall always maintain, subject to anything which any authority in the House may say, that any Member of the Committee is entitled on a Financial Resolution to report to the House and to the country exactly where we stand, and to remind the Committee of where we stand and the
financial commitments which we have already made. I know of no occasion when that right has been challenged in any quarter. While none of us desire, from the point of view of finance wisely and properly spent, to c[...]rtail the Minister in any way, I do think that, at a time when taxation is so important from the point of view of unemnployment, he should be able to give us some further estimate than that which is contained in this Resolution, because at the best it is only an estimate and in no way gives any definite particulars as to our financial commitments. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what he hopes our financial commitments will be under this resolution during the next 12 months, I think he will have done all that we can reasonably expect.

Miss RATHBONE: The point to which I want to direct the attention of the Committee is the rather curious discrepancy which appears to have crept in between the Financial Memorandum and the Financial Resolution on the one hand and a Clause of the Bill on another. The Clause to which I refer deals with what I may call the super-grant, Which is the grant that is to be allowed for buildings of a tenement character of over three storeys in height, and the curious thing is that, whereas the Bill appears to imply that that higher grant of—3 10s. can only he made if a building is both above three storeys high and built on land of over—4,000 value per acre, the Financial Memorandum and the Financial Resolution imply that those are alternative qualifications, and that you can get the super-grant if your building is over three storeys high or if it is built on a site of a value of over £4,000 per acre. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us which it is, or whether I am wrong in reading the word as "and" in the case of Clause 23 and as "or" in the case of the Financial Memorandum and the Financial Resolution?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must tell the hon. Lady, as I have been trying to tell other hon. Members, that if there is any difficulty about these matters they must be met by Amendments to the Bill. The question arising here is merely the amount of money that is required for the purposes of the Bill

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Surely if there is a discrepancy between the Clause in
the Bill and the necessary provision in the Finance Resolution, the only chance this Committee has is to amend the Motion, and surely the hon. Lady is in order on this point, because there does appear to be a discrepancy between the Financial Memorandum and paragraph (i, b) of the Financial Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Lady was raising the question of the meaning of the Bill.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Lady was explaining the difference between the financial provision and the Bill.

Miss RATHBONE: In any case, the point does affect the financial Clauses of the Bill, because it is quite clear that, if both these conditions have to be satisfied—and this is the further point I want to bring up—it is a strong inducement to property owners to profiteer, and put up site values. The cost entailed by this particular Clause is very much heavier if the indirect effect is that the price charged for housing sites is going to be greater. May I illustrate it by what actually happened no longer ago than last Friday, when I was attending the housing committee of the Liverpool City Council? We had a proposal brought before us to put up a three-storey tenement in a slum clearance project; we liked the look of it, but it transpired that the cost of the land worked out at 14s. a yard, which is less than £4,000 an acre; a gloom spread over the countenances of my colleagues, and the project was dropped. When next I attend the housing committee, if that project comes up again, we shall find that the property owner has thought better of his price. Property owners are always very glad to oblige in a little matter of that kind. Therefore, I suggest that it had better be cleared up whether the Minister intends to make these two alternative qualifications, or whether it means that both must be satisfied.
I hope that the Ministry will, at any rate, see their way to make the whole arrangement a good deal more flexible, because it will considerably raise the cost of these buildings, and therefore the money will not go so far if local authorities are to be goaded into erecting four-storey tenements, and over four-storey tenements, when it is not really necessary, in order to qualify for the higher
grant. It is true that the Minister is asked to give his approbation, but he cannot be on the spot, and must be largely guided by what the local authorities want. Although he told us that this is only to be used in a few places, such as London, he is putting a strong temptation on local authorities to make out a case for a peculiarly undesirable form of building on costly sites, when it is not really necessary, in order to secure a higher grant.
10.0 p.m
The Ministry of Health should more and more consider whether we are right in assuming always and as a matter of course that housing must be subsidised, that it is a health service. which must involve some charge on the State, and that transport need never be subsidised, but that it must always be regarded as a wealth-producing form of enterprise. Would it not sometimes be cheaper to subsidise transport in the form of workmen's fares—

The CHAIRMAN: On this Money Resolution, the hon. Member cannot discuss the subsidisation of transport.

Miss RATHBONE: I thought that was in order if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) was in order in alluding to the cost of social services.

The CHAIRMA.N: I understood that the right hon. Member for West Woolwich referred to these vast sums of money as an argument against too large amounts being paid for houses.

Miss RATHBONE: I was deducing the argument that, as trams are always expected to make a contribution to the rates, that indirectly has an effect on tram fares, so that people have to live—

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Financial Resolution.

Miss RATHBONE: I will try to keep very strictly within the Motion. There is another point which I want to bring before the Committee. It concerns another discrepancy between what the Bill says and what the Motion and the Financial Memorandum say. One might almost imagine that the Bill had been drafted by one set of individuals and that the Financial Memorandum and Motion had
been drafted by another set of individuals. The point to which I want to draw attention affects the qualification for the unit grant. Clause 23 of the Bill says that the contributions payable is to be
multiplied by the number of persons of the working classes whose displacement is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister," etc.,
and it goes on:
Provided that the number of persons to be taken into account in calculating such contribution shall not exceed the number of persons of the working classes for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Minister, been rendered available by the authority in new houses.
Note the words "the number of persons of the working classes." It does not say the number of displaced persons. When you turn to the Financial Memorandum, it says:
The Bill provides (Clause 23) that the new grant shall be based on the number of persons required to be displaced for whom accommodation is rendered available in new houses.
The Financial Resolution carries out the interpretation of the Financial Memorandum, for it says:
The Gum of two pounds five shillings, multiplied in either case by the number of persons of the working classes (being persons whose displacement is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister to have been rendered necessary by such action as aforesaid) for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Minister, been rendered available in new houses.
It may not be clear to the Committee why there is that apparent but important diversity, because if it means that this grant must depend upon what accommodation is provided in respect of which a grant is to be paid being exclusively at the disposition of dispossessed persons, that is a different thing and will involve different liabilities, if the Minister were able to displace certain persons from the slums, build new houses, but put other persons from other houses in those new houses, and deal otherwise with the persons displaced from the slums. I have been a Member for the last 20 years of a local authority which has pursued that precise policy of clearing slum sites, building expensive tenement buildings upon those sites, charging the official low rent for those buildings, and then reserving them for displaced persons. As a matter of fact, I can say from bitter
experience that it worked abominably. It is a fertile cause of an indirect sort of political and religious gerrymandering. It is extravagant and it is demoralising and causes acute hardship to decent people who voluntarily move themselves out of the slums. We had Some years ago to ask our sanitary inspector to take special care lest people shouk fake overcrowding in order that their homes might be closed so as to qualify for the costly privilege of living in these expensive tenement dwellings. I believe that there are people who carry their beliefs so far that they do not believe in punishment at all. This Bill goes further. It not only does not punish people who have lived in the slums when it was not necessary, but it bribes them to do so, and penalises those who have taken themselves out of the slums.

The CHAIRMAN: That [...]nd. of dicussion might be all right on the Second Reading of the Bill, hut we are not considering that now. I must ask the hon. Member to keep her remarks to the Financial Resolution.

Miss RATHBONE: I was trying to point out the diversity between the Financial Memorandum and the Bill. It cannot mean two things. It must mean either that local authorities may use these particular dwellings for displaced persons, or they can get the unit grant to deal with displaced persons otherwise. That is a matter which concerns this Financial Resolution, which does not agree with what the Bill says. Surely we are entitled to know which is right. There is a third point, and this, I submit, is strictly in order. It is concerned with a question of differential rents, for which money is provided in the Financial Memorandum. My point is this, that the hon. Lady in winding-up the Second Reading Debate, confidently anticipated local authorities would make use of that block grant for the purpose of providing children's rent reba:es. I would remind the Committee that local authorities who have not the privilege of listening to these Debate will take the Memorandum and the Bill without the advantage of the knowledge of this Debate, and they may not realise the true position.
May I give an illustration? Let us imagine that there is a dwelling in one of these slums to be cleared away. There
is a dock labourer with three children, and his average wage is £2 a week. The maximum rent-paying capacity of this man—I base it on Rowntree's figures of the cost of living—is 8s. Therefore, he is a highly suitable person to benefit from a specially low-rented dwelling provided under this grant. If the form of your differential rent is merely a flat rate, you put this dock labourer into one of these new dwellings, and he pays a rent of 8s. instead of what would otherwise be 10s. That is excellent. Six years hence, what is the case? Supposing his three children are now aged 14, 13 and 11. Six years later they are old enough to be bringing in wages which, at the normal rate for their ages, would mean an income of £5 or £6. Yet that unnecessary subsidy will still be attached to the house in which they are living.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for discussion on the Bill, and not on the Financial Resolution. It will depend on the terms of the Bill when it has passed through the House. The hon. Member must move amendments to it if it does not meet with her wishes.

Miss RATHBONE: I thought I was in order in trying to show that if one use is made of money it would cost less and—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member was not in the House two hours ago when I said we could not discuss the merits of the Bill on the Money Resolution.

Miss RATHBONE: So far as this Financial Resolution is concerned, I think I have tried, and have succeeded fairly well, in making my point clear, that the money we shall require to spend must be so manipulated as to get from it the greatest possible use.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not propose to get out of order by following the hon. Lady. I will do my best in the difficult circumstances to keep in order, but that will mean that I shall not be able to reply to numerous points which have been put to me. With regard to the discrepancies which the hon. Lady has found between Clause 23 and the Money Resolution, I can assure her that she is entirely mistaken. I am very glad to think that she is wrong, because it would be rather a serious thing if there were an obvious
discrepancy between the Money Clause of the Bill and the Money Resolution, but, as a matter of fact, the Money Resolution is not always in precisely the same terms as the Bill itself. I can assure her that the words "either or" read correctly in both the Money Resolution and the proviso to Clause 23 of the Bill. There are a good many "or's" and "and's" in that proviso, and perhaps the hon. Lady has not chosen the right one, but if she will read it again and read (i, b) of the Money Resolution, I think she will find that both read in the same sense.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that is so, because the phrasing is so different that it seems to be liable to three constructions? I am sure the Committee will be glad to hear what the Minister says, but I agree with the hon. Lady that there seems very grave risk about it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am a plain blunt man and no lawyer, and I am advised that is so. I can only take the word of my advisers, and I feel sure that they are right.

Mr. BROWN: This really is very important. The paragraph puts it in this way:
Provided that, if in any case the Minister certifies that it is necessary,
and these are the important words—
in connection with a clearance area, to provide re-housing accommodation in buildings of more than three storeys, either in the area, or outside the area on a site which has been, or is to be, acquired or appropriated.
That is the difficult word. The Financial Resolution does not cover all three points. It states:
if the Minister of Health certifies that it is necessary to provide re-housing accommodation in buildings of more than three storeys on the site of a clearance area, or on a site which has been, or is to be, acquired or appropriated for the purpose.
That does not appear to cover the whole point, but if the right hon. Gentleman tells us his advisers say that it does, we must accept it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am advised that that is so, but if it should be found when we have passed this Resolution that the Bill is not in harmony we must alter the Bill.

Mr. BROWN: This is an italicised Clause and, though I speak with reserve, I have never known an italicised Clause altered in Committee. We always understood that it was bound by the Financial Resolution.

Miss RATHBONE: The line I am referring to is line 42:
and of which the cost or, in the case of an appropriated site.
I do not see how "and" can mean the same thing as "or."

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Lady has chosen the wrong "and" or the wrong "or." In a matter of legal interpretation I must be guided by my advisers. [Intterruption.] Oh, I know the old age: "Where is the Attorney?" Earlier it was "Where is the Financial Secretary?" He is here. Now, may I deal with the central points which have been raised with regard to the Money Resolution? The Debate on the Money Resolution has been very unreal. We have had the usual complaint about the absence of the Financial Secretary, and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has said there must be some mystery in this matter. We have had the usual speeches, containing urgent, tearful appeals for a quite specific statement as to what is to be spent in the next year. That is all very unreal. Everybody knows that there never has been a Housing Bill on which one could put down in pounds, shillings and pence in the Money Resolution what was to be spent in the next 12 months. That depends on how quickly hon. Members will allow me to get the Bill. If I were able to get the Bill this week instead of at a later date the expenditure would be larger. The longer the operation of the Bill is postponed the smaller will be the expenditure during the current financial year.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: There is a distinct echo from beyond the Bar.

The CHAIRMAN: If there is an echo or any other sound from beyond the Bar, it is not in order.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The expenditure to be incurred during the current financial year is not a matter which depends only upon me. It depends very largely on the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Wool-
wich (Sir K. Wood) in 1923 helped to pilot a Housing Bill through the House of Commons, and the Financial Resolution introduced on that occasion was just as vague in its terms as the one we are discussing. On that occasion we were told that the charge on the Exchequer would depend on the extent to which the provisions of the Bill were put into operation.

Mr. E. D. SIMON: In regard to that Bill an actual estimate was given of the proportion of the cost of the houses in relation to taxes and rates for 15 years.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We have had negotiations with the building industry in order to arrive at a 15 years programme on an accelerated basis, and we were given an estimate of the number of houses which could be built in a year. That statement was incorporated in a document which has been circulated to Members of the House, and assuming that that number of houses can be built in a year, we can easily arrive, by a process of simple arithmetic, at how much the cost would be to the Exchequer. This Bill is not on the same footing as the Bill of 1923, and every hon. Member knows that it is simply fantastic for anybody to ask what is likely to be the burden placed on the Exchequer next year by this Measure. As a number of hon. Members seem desperately concerned about the money that is to be spent upon this scheme, let me make a statement which shows the difficulties. The cost to the Exchequer will depend upon the proportion of people who are re-housed in rural areas as compared with industrial areas, and in tenements as compared with the number rehoused in cottages. If we assume that in, say, 10 years we are going to re-house 1,000,000 people—I am not putting that as an estimate, but am simply trying to give some sort of figure of cost—and assuming that 20 per cent. of those people are re-housed in tenement buildings, then the peak cost per year would amount to about £2,200,000. It would start in the first year with a net cost of £220,000, and would increase each year unitil. 11 years onwards, that would be [...]he maximum cost. If you were to re-house 1,500,000 persons in 10 years, on the assumption, again, that 20 per cent. arc re-housed in tenement dwellings, the maximum cost would be a little less than £3,500,000 per
year. That is the maximum cost per year—[interruption]—not for 40 years, but for a part of the 40 years—an insignificant sum compared with the results that will be achieved.
Why are people boggling about the few thousands, or hundreds of thousands, that might be spent during the present financial year? It is absurd. If the Bill were on the Statute Book to-morrow, and local authorities were to do their best in the present financial year, the cost compared with the total national expenditure would be microscopically small, and I am prepared to admit that. It seems to be suggested that in the Money Resolution there is some limitation of expenditure. There is not. Nobody will be more pleased than I if the Exchequer has to hand out very considerable sums of money for this work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not grumble at it; he is as much a party to this Bill as I am. It is not that we want to put in any limitation of cost; we want to force up the maximum of output of slum clearance schemes, and that, I hope, we shall succeed in doing.
I must say a word. unfortunately, about a question that I have had to meet before, that, indeed, I had to meet in the Debate on the Money Resolution on the Widows' Pension Bill before Christmas. There was much the same speech from the right hon. Gentleman. "Nobody begrudges wise expenditure, but we must have regard to the general social expenditure. The amount of money expended on the social services has increased by leaps and bounds during recent years, and we have got to think, and think very carefully, before we embark on any new schemes." True, his heart bleeds for the slum dwellers. He does not want to deprive any one of them of a new house. But we must consider this £2,000,000 a year that we may ultimately be spending—

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Do not you consider it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I had an interruption like that before, as well, and my answer is the same. So long as there is money in the till, human interests must come first. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Ah!" Is he going to say that there is no money in the till? I do not understand what the moral of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is, but he must
have something in his mind. [interruption.] I have know the right hon. Gentleman too long ever to believe that he has not something in his mind. But what is the moral? Is the moral that we are already spending too much on these services? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] If hon. Members say "Yes," I profoundly disagree with them. Or is it that we arc not spending too much but that we cannot afford to spend any more? Is that the conclusion the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to draw from his speech? If it means anything at all, it must mean either that we are already spending more than we can carry or that we have reached the limit of our expenditure on the social services.
I do not believe either is true, and I am not impressed by a comparison of expenditure on housing or any other social service in this and other countries. I know that in this country we have our duty to perform by the people whom we represent, and it does not influence me in the least to say that the United States spend £6 per head while in this country we are spending £14. I think it is a matter for pride rather than commiseration. I should have liked, had it been possible, to come down to a closer estimate. In the next, or indeed any other financial year, we shall have to provide in the Estimates, which will be subject to criticism in this House, some sum to be devoted to the purposes of the Bill, and in each subsequent year in the Estimates of the Department some definite sum will have to be included, but it is merely frivolous, captious criticism to complain that a Money Resolution of a Bill of this kind does not specify down to the last decimal of a penny what we are likely to spend in the present or in coming financial years.
The Government will stand by the finance of this scheme. It will do its best to co-operate with local authorities in promoting slum-clearance schemes and improvement schemes in order that the public money that is available shall be expended for the public good, and if it be that in the next financial year I can still stand at this Box on the occasion of those Estimates, I shall be able, or if not I, my successor, will be able to give the House a much more definite statement as to the amount of national expenditure that will be incurred. I believe the House realises the strength of my case,
and will be just as willing to give a unanimous consent to the Money Resolution as it did to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Captain CROOKSHANK: After the somewhat rambling oration to which we have just listened, interspersed with cheap gibes at my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, I think the Committee might be brought back to consider the financial aspect of the Financial Resolution, instead of being treated to what one imagines one might hear at a meeting addressed by the right hon. Gentleman in his own constituency. One of the objections, as I see it, to this Resolution, which must be one of the longest sentences ever put into print—72 lines without a break—is that the right hon. Gentleman says the Committee is at fault in that we expect him to give any close estimate. He does not profess to be right down to the decimal point of a penny. It is not a question of decimal points of pennies, but of millions of pounds that he cannot tell us about. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member can answer that conundrum, he will have done well. It is more than we have been able to get out of his leader. It is not a question of decimal points of a penny, hut of £2,000,000, £3,000,000, £4,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year.
It is all very well the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not care whether we spend £14 per head of the population a year on social services, and the United States of America spend £6 on similar kinds of services, and that arguments of that kind do not impress him. I would suggest to him, with all deference, that in the Cabinet where these matters are discussed, figures of that kind have a very distinct bearing upon the whole question of unemployment in this country, and that they would repay the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues from that point of view. We object very much to the fact that there is such vagueness about the financial aspect of this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech has admitted that it is vague, because in one of those twitting moments in which he indulged, he said that in 1923 the party to which I belong brought in a Bill which was as vague as this one, thereby admitting the vagueness of the Resolution
about which he had been taking. It is no good his going back sever years and blaming other people. We are concerned to-day with the present Governnment and the present Minister of Health. We are concerned because there is no kind of limit either upwards or downwards.
I understand, from interjections by hon. Members on the Liberal benches, that their complaint is, that they do not think the Minister is asking for sufficient money for this service. That may very well be, for the simple reason that we do not know what he is asking for. It is not a question of thinking. If hon. Members come to this House, they ought to pay some attention to the finances of the country. We are the custodians of the public purse. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Churchill?"] My right hon. Friend is quite capable of looking after himself. This Committee is not concerned with the past history of anybody, but with this Financial Resolution. The objection which I Eave to the Resolution is that there is no maximum and no minimum set. It would have made the whole thing much easier if there had been a maximum provision. [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you suggest?"] It is not for me to suggest any more than it is for the hon. Member to keep interjecting. The hon. Member has not treated us to one of his sonorous contributions on this subject. It is not the heavyweights from the other side, but it is more of a pip-squeak nature. No figure is stated. In a big Bill of this nature that is one of the first essentials. My second objection, and one to which I would direct the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is that there is no automatic provision for any revision of these rates. Apparently, under the Financial Resolution, there is no arrangement that in, say, three, five or 10 or any other number of years, the subject should come up for discussion to enable us to see if the rates laid down in the Resolution are then applicable.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would remind the hon. Member that he cannot have read the Bill.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to indulge in the same kiind of jokes at my expense as he did at the expense of my right hon. Friend. I am talking
about the Financial Resolution. Considering the way that everybody this evening has been pulled up whenever alluding to the Bill, I would say that this is one of the things which ought to be covered. Apart from the two major points, there is a small point which I admit is rather complicated. It arises on the Financial Resolution and relates to the contributions which are made to the local authorities. It is common knowledge that the clearing and rebuilding of a site cannot be done in the twinkling of an eye, but the local authority is put to expenditure from the very start.
The point which has been put to me is whether the local authority would automatically have to take up a loan at once, and purchase the site, and at what period afterwards would they receive the Exchequer contributions. The Government and the Minister of Health stand very badly in this Financial Resolution. They have brought it forward without having any kind of estimate as to what the cost will be. The figures which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman are a mathematical calculation which has no value and no kind of relation to the Bill. He cannot make any actual estimate, nor can anyone else, because he cannot tell which local authorities are going to he stimulated into action and which will want to build tenement buildings, and so on. Therefore, it is all the more desirable that some maximum annual sum should be put in the Financial Resolution. Power should be taken in the Resolution for revising the contributions from time to time.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: When the Minister of Health has a bad case he stands up, flings out his arms, turns his back on the Chairman, and says, "I stand by the Financial Resolution." What is the Financial Resolution? The Parliamentary Secretary said that they could not give any estimate of the cost. That is a nice kind of Financial Resolution for any Government to bring forward. The Minister of Health has not explained to us whether we are or whether we are not the highest taxed country in the world. He has not told us whether we have, or have not, the greatest number of unemployed we have had for many years. Yet this is the time when the Government
propose to put fresh burdens upon the industries of the country! The Minister of Health has not told us haw many houses this Financial Resolution will provide in the rural areas, nor What burden it will put upon agriculture. It is obvious that it will put some burden upon agriculture, but so far we have had no explanation at all of the agricultural side of this proposal. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to another point. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to combat profiteering? There is no provision against profiteering in this Bill, and on a previous Housing Bill the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) protested against the rise in prices. There is also no provision in the Bill to deal with the tied cottage system.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): The hon. and gallant Member must bear in mind that we are not now discussing the merits or demerits of the Bill. We are discussing the Money Resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: There is no provision in this Financial Resolution to deal with tied cottages, and, therefore, in another direction hon. Members opposite have broken their pledge. [Interruption.] I know that when questions of economy are being discussed, when matters concerning the rural districts are before the Committee, hon. Members opposite treat them as a matter for laughter. If the housing conditions of some of the rural areas were known to hon. Members opposite they would appreciate any contribution that might be made towards a solution of the problem. We are justified in examining the provisions of this Financial Resolution in order to see how they affect rural areas. I know hon. Members opposite do not take any interest in such matters, but at this early hour of the night we have plenty of time to consider this and some other aspects of the question. In the Financial Memorandum to the Bill there is mention of a contribution of £1 per year for 40 years from the county council. We have no explanation as to how this is to be raised. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will give us some explanation. While the right hon. Gentleman is considering this point, may I draw attention to the agricultural land which is described in
the italicised part of this Bill? We are not entitled to discuss that on the financial Clause. It specially exempts plantations and woodlands from any contributions—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will have ample opportunity of discussing the Clauses of the Bill when it is in Committee. He must confine himself now to the Financial Resolution.

Lieut. - Colonel HENEAGE: With great respect, I have asked for your Ruling once or twice. When there is a financial Clause in italics, has it not been ruled that it is impossible to debate it in Committee? I think your predecessor, Mr. Dunnico, ruled that we were entitled to discuss it on the Financial Resolution, and, with your permission, I will seek to do so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with Clause 52. That Clause in the Bill is open to amendment like other Clauses.

Mr. HAYCOCK: On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. and gallant Member has not been called to Order three times?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: It is true that I also asked the Ruling of the Chair about special points. There is only one other point which I want to raise.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Is it not in accordance with the Rules of the House that, when an hon. Member has been called to Order three times, he resumes his seat.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is always done at the discretion of the Chair, and the same rule will apply in this discussion.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to address the Chair standing with both his hands in his pockets?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it in order for the hon. Member to address you, Mr. Dunnico, in a foreign language?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The last point I want to raise—[Interruption.]

Mr. HAYCOCK: On a point of Order—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am perfectly certain the Committee will make greater progress if we keep good temper. I would remind the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) that he ought not to refer to an accent which is Canadian as foreign.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Having received that explanation from you, Mr. Dunnico, I unhesitatingly and with good heart withdraw.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In the Financial Resolution I find that there is to be a grant as regards agricultural parishes of a sum of £2 10s. per person, and I should like, in the first place, an explanation as to how this grant is to be allotted, and, secondly, if it has any relation to the explanation which is contained on page 3 of the Memorandum, and which says that county councils are to make a contribution of £1 a year for 40 years.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Financial Resolution does not deal with any money which is raised by county councils. It merely deals with the money which is to be provided by Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Dunnico, because you are the only one who has explained this Financial Resolution at all. We were quite unaware, from what the Minister said, as to whether there was to be any contribution to the county council to help them to pay this contribution. We now have the explanation from you.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What I have told the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that this Financial Resolution does not include any moneys raised by county councils, but only the money to be pro vided by Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am interested to hear that statement because we wanted to know from where this money was to come

11.0 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of us have listened with great patience to all the experts, who know nothing about slums, but who have been mainly responsible for creating them. They all want to know how much they are going to get out of the Bill, but we are
only anxious to know how the people are going to be got out of the slums. The Bill provides the machinery whereby a great effort can be made to give those who have been living in slums since their childhood a chance of living under better conditions. As to this Financial Resolution, we know that it is impossible to get houses without money. It is impossible to give the people anything they want unless we are able to find the means. I am not talking about the bread that perisheth, but you must have bread and you must have houses, and you cannot get either, unless you have the money to buy it. I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite, of both parties, speak of the necessity for dealing with the slum problem and speaking in a manner which would bring tears to the eyes of the Nelson Monument. [Interruption.] You cannot do these things without money. The Government are asking for money, and the late Government asked for money, and the Government before that asked for money. If we want money, why not ask for it? The only trouble is that we cannot get the exact amount we want. I can remember being in this House in 1918, when there was no question of money, when the money was turned out in lashings. A sum of £6,000,000 did not matter when it was a question of a battleship, because the more you spent the better the country would be, and battleships for ever! All we are asking now is houses for the people, and I believe that decent houses built for the poorer section of the community are a better investment than any battleship ever built. So far as we are concerned, we are wanting money, and it is your money we want. Hon. Members opposite are very anxious to know where it will come from, and we will tell them next Monday.
By means of this Resolution, we shall get the money to abolish the slums in my constituency, and we are going to see to it that the slums go at the earliest possible opportunity. I represent an East London constituency close to the docks. Most of the people working there are casual labourers, men who have to go to the docks three times a day on the
off chance of getting half a day's work. How can you house them on the rents that they are now compelled to pay? The consequence is overcrowding and the creation of slums. Every new child born into a family makes a new slum condition, and that is the condition we are up against. Then we have men who work on ship work at six in the morning, 10 at night, and two in the afternoon, and they cannot get away from the conditions under which they work. How are these people going to pay rents beyond their means of earning? Finance, to me, means simply this: How much bread and butter can you put upon the table, and can you have a smoke on the Sunday?—[An HON. MEMBER: "And a glass of beer!"] Yes, a glass of beer is necessary, and I have never objected to one yet, but I only want to ask this House to remember that this Bill is the first big effort that has ever been made to deal with the biggest part of the housing problem. Therefore I welcome the Bill. Alter it as much as you like in Committee, but you cannot alter the facts. The facts are there. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury talked about it in another place. Everybody has been talking about it; now they are trying to do something, and, instead of asking questions, interrogatory Members opposite ought to be backing us. This Bill will help the rural areas as well as the industrial areas.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: No!

Mr. JONES: The Government are doing more than any other Government have ever done. I know what the hon. Gentleman opposite wants. He wants to know how much the Government are going to grant them as subsidies on the tree tops. He wants rabbits to be subsidised. All we want is to give the people a chance, and to live, not like rabbits in hutches, but to live in the decent air of God.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I should not have taken part in this Debate except for the speech of the Minister of Health. He made the astonishing statement that he was not interested in what was spent on social services in the United
States, and I naturally felt compelled once again to take part in a Debate because of a speech of his. Although he is lacking in interest in this matter, if he will go back to some of the speeches of his leader, or to one of the more vital Members of the Government—[Interruption]. I said one of the more vital Members; I mean one of those who had more push and go, and I refer to the Lord Privy Seal. He told us not very long ago that finance here and in other countries, but particularly in this country, is essential for the welfare of the country. I will not go into that, except to say how glad I am that, as the right hon. Gentleman made such a statement, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is here.
This Financial Resolution is loosely worded, and not particularly well drawn up, and I wish it were made clearer, not only in this Financial Resolution, but in other financial Resolutions, that the Treasury were going to play a much more direct part in controlling the finances of this Bill, and of other Bills. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on a matter in paragraph (i) (a). Two sums are mentioned. One is the sum of £2 10s. for agricultural districts, and the other a sum of £2 5s. for the towns. I have from time to time to explain these Measures to my constituents, and I want to know which particular sections of the community are covered by the £2 10s. Am I right in assuming that that sum is made to cover all people in agricultural parishes who may be removed because of bad housing? Some agricultural parishes contain a fishing village. Will those fishing villages come in under the higher standard? I hope that they will. An hon. Member below the Gangway says "No."

Mr. E. BROWN: The agricultural parishes referred to are not rural parishes but parishes which conform to certain special conditions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thank the hon. Member for what he has just said. But there are some agricultural parishes which are defined as such which have a very small village group. They are clearly agricultural parishes. Am I right
in assuming that any one in an agricultural parish is dealt with wider the higher sum?

Mr. GREENWOOD: indicated assent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I want to go further; and to know how it is arranged in paragraph (i, b) of this Resolution. Line 34 says, "multiplied by the number of persons." May I inquire from the Minister, when you are working out the number of persons moved from one place to another, are you taking the whole of th family?

Mr. GREENWOOD: indicated assent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has been able to give me that assurance, for it makes it easier for me to vote for this Financial Resolution. I have on many occasions opposed Financial Resolutions. Although I am convinced that the mere spending of money will not necessarily cure anything, will not necessarily cure the trouble, yet we all hope to see bad housing abolished in all our towns. I believe that if you can get real co-operation between the local authorities and all concerned, then money which will be ultimately spent will be for the good of the country as a whole. Although much of this money is obviously capital expenditure, on the whole I believe that, although no one likes growing expenditure more than I do, I am convinced that in this Resolution we shall see results which will justify this Committee in giving the Government this Money Resolution for which they are now asking. I would say in my last remark that it is most extraordinary that throughout this Debate we have had no explanation of any kind from the Treasury.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: I have one question to put to the Minister, and that is whether there is a provision in this Money Resolution to prevent local authorities erecting unsightly tenements which will be the potential slums of another generation. In Liverpool they are erecting tenements without any playgrounds or anything which will prevent them becoming slums, and I want to know whether the Minister has any power to prevent this. Could we not put up tenements like those in Vienna, which
certainly will not be slums in another generation? In Liverpool they are putting all the best rooms to the north, and the bath rooms, the kitchens and the lavatories to the south. I only wish to call attention to this matter so that the Minister may give it consideration.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to he read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr.DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1930.

CLASS VII.

Orders of the Day — ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum not exceeding £220,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."—[NOTE.—£110,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: When the Debate was adjourned on Friday last, I examined in some detail Items 1, 2, and 4 on page 5. Of course, I shall not go over all those items again, but I would like to ask the First Commissioner of Works to explain how the appropriation-in-aid, amounting to £86,330, is arrived at. I was addressing myself to the question of the Geological Museum when the Debate was interrupted last Friday, and I drew attention to items on this Vote on page 5, No. 4. There is an item in the Vote for the Geological Museum new building. I should like to know if there are going to be alterations to provide additional accommodation for the Department of Geology, and if any provision is being made for the removal of the Geological Museum from Jermyn Street. If that is going to be done, has any arrangement been made for the surrender of the value of the site, and into what fund will that go? It is well known to all
Members of the House that there has been an arrangement to make Jermyn Street a one-way street, and I would like to know what arrangements have been made for widening that street?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I have nothing to do with the widening of streets.

Mr. SAMUEL: There is an item of £220,000. Does that cover the removal of the Geological Museum from Jermyn Street?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is only entitled to ask any question in regard to an item for which the First Commissioner of Works is responsible.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will endeavour to obey your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico. If there is an amount due to the Crown for the site on which the Jermyn Street Museum now stands, does the right hon. Gentleman take any of that money towards this Vote?

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that money will not revert to the Office of Works, but to the Commissioners of Crown Lands.

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not know it, and that was why I put the question. The right hon. Gentleman has now given, me the answer that he might as well have given at first.
On page 7 there is an item for the Royal Scottish Museum at Edinburgh. My hon. Friends behind me will probably deal with that point, but here we have something for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, and I should like to ask why there is an unexpended Vote of £6,000. Hon. Gentlemen have been on the Public Accounts Committee, and they will bear me out in saying that the House does not look with favour on these large unexpended Votes. It will require to know what is the reason for this one. The right hon. Gentleman is now asking for £6,000 to be voted again, having only spent £2,000 of the £8,000 previously granted; and he asks for £7,500 more, making a total of £13,500. I shall want some assurance from him, and I think other Members will also, that he is going to spend this £13,500 in 1930–31. As be spent only a quarter of the amount allotted last year, we cannot pass this Vote when past experience seems to show that his predecessor asked for money
which he himself has not expended. I protest against these re-votes. I think that they represent very bad accounting and very bad budgeting.
Then there is an item, "National Gallery, Instalment of Electric Light," where we are asked to vote, for works and services, the sum of £12,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what type of lighting he proposes to use. Again, on the next page, there is an item for the National Gallery of British Art, which I presume is the Gallery at Mill-bank. I am glad to bear that the lighting is to be altered. I know the difficulties of lighting such galleries, and I trust that experiments will be made with a view to adopting a successful system of lighting the pictures. The lighting of these galleries, as of this Chamber, belongs to 25 years ago. If hon. Members will try it now, they will see that we are in a dim vault. The lighting here is dreadful, and if an attempt is made to light either the National Gallery or the Millbank Gallery on systems which were popular 25 years ago, it will still fail to give proper lighting for the pictures. I was at the National Gallery the other day, and one could not see the pictures because of the reflection of the light in the glass. I hope that the right. hon. Gentleman will use some modern system of lighting with diffused rays, such as that used at the Savoy Theatre; and I hope that, when be has made experiments at the National Gallery, he will come down here and alter the lighting of this Chamber.
Then there is an item of £47,000 for the Froude Tank. I suppose that that is for testing the violence of water waves, and, if so, it is an extraordinarily large. amount. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain it. Why is it necessary to spend so much? With regard to acoustics, I hope he will be successful in solving something that has hitherto puzzled engineers.

Captain CAZALET: Information has been given us in answers regarding the lighting in the National Gallery. I presume, although money is being granted by Parliament and the work is controlled by the right hon. Gentleman himself, he is consulting the trustees and their opinion is asked and their sanction will be required as to what lighting will be good for the pictures.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I am anxious to know about the annual report, with regard to the work carried out it the fuel research station at Greenwich.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am afraid that again is not a matter on which I can give any information. We are only providing the buildings and apparatus. The report will come, I should think, under the Board of Trade.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I am justified in having asked for information as the First Commissioner is in some doubt himself.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not in any doubt as to my own responsibility. I have none.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On this matter of fuel research I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to make a report himself.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member must understand that the running of that Department is not within the jurisdiction of the Office of Works, so that I am not responsible in any way. If I were, I should be able to answer.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is precisely what I said but fuel research is a most important matter and I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is standing in the way of its development by holding up the buildings. That is what my hon. and gallant Friend wanted to know. I think someone is holding it up and I want to be sure the right hon. Gentleman is not the person. With regard to the new building for the Geological Museum, the sum is considerable. The buildings are getting on fairly well but not as well as might be hoped. When will the work be absolutely completed, and does the hon. Gentleman think the building will be more suitable for seeing the geological works that will he housed there. than the present building?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his authorities have been able to assure him that the new buildings are at least as efficient as the old for the preservation of the various geological examples which will be placed in them? On page 6 there is reference to the Natural History Museum and the whale
room. I need not enlarge upon the purpose of the extension. I am not particularly interested in whales. I should like to know whether in this room it, will also be possible to provide accommodation for grey seals? That would be an additional reason for spending the money on this occasion. On page 8 there is an item in regard to which my mind is not quite clear. I should like an explanation of what is meant by an approved tank? How many of these tanks are there in existence?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only concern of the hon. Member should be whether this money should be granted for this particular tank.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that this particular tank is the very latest and most up-to-date of its kind. On page 9, in connection with the National Portrait Gallery and Museum of Antiquities, Edinburgh, there is an item of £15,000 for fire proofing. I cannot make out why they want such a frightful lot of fire proofing in Edinburgh for this purpose. Is there any particular danger? Have you to guard against incendiaries coming from the Clydeside? I know that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of these Estimates is a very mild man. I want to know whether this is an ordinary precaution, or whether he is like certain old ladies who think that there are Bolshevists everywhere and is therefore having particular attention paid to this matter? We know that they are very tame people in Edinburgh, and I hope that everything possible is being done to protect them from any wild people.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not object to the questions put by hon. Members opposite. It is the duty of hon. Members to scrutinise estimates of expenditure. The Estimates have to do with work which it is imperative we should carry out at the earliest possible moment. That is why we are anxious to get them through this evening. I can assure hon. Members that there is no question of holding up work anywhere. The Research Station will be carried through with as much expedition as possible. I am now able to inform the hon. Member who made inquiries on the subject, that there is an annual report issued by the Department
of Scientific and Industrial Research. I am not quite sure under which Department that comes; perhaps it is the Board of Trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Board of Education."] The Geological Museum will be completed as soon as possible. While I am at the Office of Works hon. Members may be sure that we shall get on with every scrap of work as rapidly as we can. Whether it will be better for the exhibits, we shall know when the job is finished but, obviously, we are convinced that it will, otherise we would not have undertaken the work.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Are the materials British?

Mr. LANSBURY: As far as possible. There are some things that we cannot get in this country and we may have to get them from abroad, but there is a standing rule in the Office of Works that all the materials used shall, as far as possible, be British. As to grey seals, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) must not mix them up with these Estimates. With regard to the Scottish gallery, the experts, who are not old ladies, think that it is necessary to carry out the work, and we shall get on with it as quickly as we can. With regard to the lighting of galleries and museums we have taken a great deal of advice. The Office of Works never undertakes any change in lighting without taking the very best advice. Changes of lighting in this building have been undertaken only after very careful consultation and consideration. I can assure hon. Members that when it comes to dealing with the museums, the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery or the Tate Gallery we shall not introduce any system of lighting without full consultation with the people concerned, and those best able to advise us.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he undertake not to embark at once upon a final decision as to what the lighting will be? I accept what he says that he will take the best possible advice. As we are not certain which system of lighting would be best, would it not be advisable to try lighting one gallery and let the public see it before deciding to proceed with the whole system of lighting?

Mr. LANSBURY: That would have to be decided with the trustees of the vari-
ous buildings. We cannot carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission to open these places at night, without providing artificial light. I can promise that we will take the very best expert advice on the subject. The hon. Member raised a number of questions in regard to the way the Estimates were prescribed. He knows better than I can tell him why they are made up in this particular way. He made some strong remarks about the wrongfulness of the re-votes, but I should like to point out that last year there was a cut of £30,000, and this was made because it was anticipated that the whole of the amount would not be spent. Whoever framed the Estimates reckoned that there would be an under-spending of £30,000. The actual under-spending was £34,000. All these re-votes arise because of the delay in spending that money, which is inevitable in the circumstances under which the Department is obliged to work. A re-vote is always included in the amount asked for every year, and so far as furniture and removals are concerned it will be accounted for as it is expended year by year. It is not included in the total of the Estimate we are now discussing. In regard to the British Museum there was first an interim report of the Royal Commission on Museums and Art Galleries. The final report was presented last year but there have been considerable discussions as to the best way of carrying out the alterations and additions and the result has been delay, but now we shall be able to go full steam ahead. The hon. Member also raised the question of providing accommodation for newspapers. That is not a matter for the Office of Works to decide. It is a question for the Trustees of the British Museum.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Yes, I agree. This is the only opportunity we have of raising questions concerning the administration of the British Museum. It is run under its own Act of Parliament. Here we have a sum of £50,000 to be voted for this purpose and I think we should really take this occasion to ask how long this policy is to continue of erecting these great buildings for the purpose of storing newspapers which may or may not be required. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman
should consult the Trustees as to whether the policy should be continued of coming to Parliament year after year for money to maintain buildings for storing articles which in 999 cases out of 1,00 will never be required at any time for any purpose.

Mr. LANSBURY: This it a matter which could not be settled by the Office of Works solely; it is one which would have to be settled by the House itself. if the House thinks we have gone too far in making this provision, then the hon. Gentleman must move to reduce the Vote and not let us have the money. That is not proposed to-night. I can only promise that I will make some inquiry into the matter and see whether the Trustees think that we have reached the limit. A very serious and difficult decision is involved in determining whether we are going to give up leaving behind us these memorials of this partcular literature of our time. I do not think I ought to be asked to determine that matter.
With regard to the Geological Museum: This building it to replace the existing museum in Je-[...]myn Street, which will ultimately rever[...] to the Commissioners of Crown Lands. There is no connection between this scheme and the later item, No. 8, in the Estimates, for improvements in the Department of Geology in the Natural History Museum. Then I was asked about the Froude tank. That is required fox testing ship models. The delay in carrying out these tests is seriously prejudicing our ability to help the shipbuilding inJustry. Fees are charged for these tests in order to cover as far as possible the actual running costs. This is the second one which is being erected, and I believe it will meet all requirements. I hope the Committee will now be kind enough to give us the Vote.

Question put, and agreed. to.

Orders of the Day — LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £428,370, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and
Health and the Department of Health for Scotland)."—[NOTE.—£214,000 has been voted on account.]

Captain BOURNE: I want to ask one or two questions, because I notice the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to build a new Employment Exchange in my own constituency. I do not know whether that is to be built in anticipation of an increase in the number of unemployed: after all, that is hardly a matter for the Office of Works. I want to know where it is proposed to build the new Exchange? At present, we have two Exchanges. I believe neither is satisfactory, and, from that point of view, I welcome the new building, Further, is it to be built on freehold land or upon land leased by the Crown? I ask for this reason: There is a very large part in my constituency, centrally situated, and quite suitable for an Employment Exchange, which belongs to the city council. I wish to know whether a site has been acquired which will permanently belong to the Crown, or whether the new building is to be erected upon land leased from the city council. I hope, when we are sanctioning the expenditure of money on public buildings, we shall, wherever possible, try to obtain a freehold site, because then the building remains for ever in the possession of the State.

Mr. ALPASS: I should like to ask a question with regard to the provision of premises for a new Employment Exchange in the city of Bristol A site was acquired, I believe, now over three years ago, at considerable expense, and we have been expecting that the new premises would have been provided. Considerable dissatisfaction has been expressed by the local employment committee with the site that was originally chosen, on account of its unsuitability, and that has been confirmed by the Minister of Labour herself. I would like to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can give me any information as to the probability of new premises being provided. The matter has become exceedingly urgent owing to the alteration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, under which larger numbers of persons are frequenting this Exchange. The existing premises are altogether unsuitable. They are very badly lighted, the men have to stand out in the street wait-
ing in long queues for a considerable time, and, owing to the pressure which the operation of the new Act has placed upon the Exchange, a disused Nonconformist chapel in the neighbourhood has been taken in order to cope with the increased work. The matter is one of very grave urgency from the standpoints of administering the Act and of the convenience of the persons who have to attend to get their cards stamped and to receive benefit.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: I should like to ask one or two questions about the new Government buildings to be erected in Edinburgh to accommodate the Department of Health and the National Insurance Audit Department, and a similar question arises on the next Vote for other Government buildings in Edinburgh, and on a subsequent Vote for Revenue buildings. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is asking for £3,200, which is the same as was asked for last year. It is part of a sum of £143,000 which is provisionally estimated, I understand, to cover the cost of erecting that part of the new Government offices that will house the Department of Health and the National Insurance Audit Department. Last year a sum of £640 was expended. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what work it is proposed to carry out during the ensuing year for this sum of £3,200 for which he is asking, and what work was carried out last year for the expenditure of the £640?
The right hon. Gentleman knows, of Course, that the question of these new buildings is one that has attracted a great deal of attention in Scotland. We all agree that it is an excellent thing that all the Government offices in Edinburgh should be concentrated at one spot on Calton Hill, but we are most anxious about the nature of the buildings. We know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Office of Works have had plans prepared by their own architect, on whom I cast no shadow of criticism at all, but it is strongly felt in Scotland that this very important building should be submitted to open competition, because it is felt that it is an opportunity for a building such as is seldom offered, and that it ought to be open to all the architects in the country. I know the right hon. Gentleman has submitted the plans
to the Scottish Fine Arts Commission. Can he tell us whether he has had any Report from that Commission, and whether they have passed any opinion on the plans? I understand that he is going to submit the plans thereafter to the town council of Edinburgh, but I am sure he must understand that there is a very general feeling in Scotland that this most important building, on an almost unique site, should be thrown open to the competition of all architects, and that it is not a matter that should be dealt with departmentally, as is suggested.

12 m

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: On page 28, I notice that a sum of £35,950 is required in 1930 for the provision of improved accommodation for Employment Exchanges as required.The Committee will agree that all the Employment Exchanges should be adequately furnished for the unfortunate people who have to frequent them, and I should be interested to know in what way that money is being spent, and whether it is for heating purposes or for additional seating accommodation. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the Committee that every possible step in conformity with modern requirements is being taken to see that the fuel that is supplied is as smokeless as possible, and that every endeavour is being made in all the Employment Exchanges and buildings concerned in this Vote to see that as little smoke as possible is emitted from Government buildings?

Mr. SKELTON: I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson) has said on the subject of the Government buildings in Edinburgh. We are probably right in assuming that a report has not yet been received from the Fine Arts Commission, and therefore any observations must be tentative. I would, however, like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this point. The scheme, as be well knows, is a very large one, and proposes to erect on this most important site—most important from the general aesthetic point of view of the City of Edinburgh—a mass of public buildings, so great a mass, indeed, that it is to house the whole of the offices which are under the Secretary of State
for Scotland. I would like to press on the right hon. Gentleman a point, which I do not think has been made in any of the previous discussions on this question. It is that, should the Fine Arts Commission come to the conclusion that the mass of buildings, which will be involved in the housing of all these Government Departments, will produce a general mass too big for the site—which is my own belief—he will not feel bound to continue the scheme of housing all the offices together, however beneficial it may be from certain points of view. The general aesthetic feeling is that the putting up of a huge mass of buildings on this site may throw out of proportion, and make an eyesore of, the beautiful line of the hill which is crowned by a light and beautiful building. There is a great danger of the whole of that end of Edinburgh being destroyed if a huge mass of buildings is put there.
I have never been able to agree very fully with the proposal, which originated when my party were in office, that the site was one where adequate provision for the whole of the Scottish Government offices could be made in consonance with the preservation of the aesthetic beauty of the site. I would ask toe right hon. Gentleman to keep open mind, because if he insisted on maintaining the original plan of housing all the offices together, he might do permanent damage of a most vital sort to what is, after all, one of the most beautiful cities in the United Kingdom. I should like to take the opportunity of urging that, even if some qualified approval were to be given by the Fine Arts Commission to the design which has been submitted to them by the right hon. Gentleman, the official design should be put in competition with the designs of architects drawn from the profession generally. It is a most unsuitable and improper procedure to confine to the official architects the designing of what is a vital building for th aesthetic beauty of Edinburgh. I have no criticism to make of them. The work that has been done by them in Whitehall, for instance, is most dignified, and in some of the examples, magnificent, but I regard with dread a row of buildings of immense size and of the ordinary official type, with pillars and pilasters, and heaven knows what, piled up in ever growing ostentation. I view with
the greatest dislike that kind of thing being introduced into the architecture of Edinburgh.
It may be a matter of sentiment and of tradition, but when you have in the very heart of the Scottish capital a site which can be used to accentuate and develop the national traditions of that place of beauty, and when you are taking the risk of putting the work on that site in the hands of official architects, it is officialdom run mad. It will not do the Office of Works any harm, it will not do the larger kingdom of the south any harm, but it may do irreparable damage to the beauty of the northern capital. So even if qualified approval is given by the Fine Arts Commission, the matter should be opened to the general architects of Scotland, and, if necessary, to those of England, so that we should not be confined to the design of the official architects. The more difficult problem may well be to throw overboard the idea of housing all the Government Departments on that site. We on this side of the Committee have no fear of the right hon. Gentleman being bound by a red tape view of a situation like that, and I am sure that he would be the first to say that, if the plans turned out to involve a more immense building than was at first contemplated, they must be changed, and that even at the expense of annoyance to a few Government clerks, the aesthetic beauty of Edinburgh must not be destroyed.

Mr. McSHANE: On page 25 is a reference to the new Employment Exchange at Walsall. The site which has been selected is not central enough, but that has been decided now, and I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is an ultimate date by which the Exchange must be finished; also whether room will be provided for shelter from the rain, from which the unemployed have to suffer at the old Exchange? Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell me the cost of the site? The Vote says that the cost of the site and the erection of the building is £12,280.

Sir GEORGE. PENNY: I know that the First Commissioner of Works is desirous of having the right type of building erected in Edinburgh but is it not possible for him to supply plans to the House of Commons of what is proposed
to be built there, so that we can have some idea of the sort of building contemplated? It seems to me that we could give him valuable assistance, for 1 am sure he is with us in wishing for the most efficient and the most desirous building on the site. I appeal to him to submit plans before taking a decision in the matter.

Mr. E. BROWN: May I use an illustration in connection with the point made by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). A public building was planned for Leith this year, a library and Town Hall. There were 90 plans from all over the kingdom. Only one of the architects hit upon the idea of having the library in front and the Town Hall behind. If those responsible for the designing of the scheme had limited themselves to one or two architects, they might not have had this admirable idea for using this site. If that is true about a comparatively easy site in the heart of Leith, it is certainly of greater moment when you consider the wonderful site at Calton Hill. I hope that the Minister, while remaining loyal to his Department, will not close his mind to other ideas, which may be even better than those of his own officers, for that great site in that great city.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: There has been a certain amount of discussion about Sheffield, as to the price of the site, and the cost of the building. Could the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about Sheffield? I should also like to echo what the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) has said about opening up competition to architects. He made a great point about Scotland, but will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is doing in regard to the designing of English Exchanges? Scotland cannot have a monopoly of beauty, and we want equal treatment for England in this regard. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why there is this delay in getting on with the building of Exchanges? There may be buildings which are to cost £30,000, and yet only £1,000 or £2,000 is being spent in the first year. Why this delay? My last point is this: I am afraid unemployment will increase in rural areas. Are these Exchanges in the towns capable of dealing with the unemployed in the rural areas? What provision is the right hon. Gentleman making to meet unemployment in rural areas?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I am not going to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman getting his Vote, and we have no intention of opposing it, but this discussion shows how inconvenient and how unwise it is for the Government, to put down a Vote at an hour when we cannot discuss these things more fully. There are several questions I want to ask, but I want it to be understood that I do not wish to ask them in any hostile spirit. Here are 16 pages of this Vote and there is scarcely a page on which there is not a re-Vote. We ought to have some explanation of these re-Votes. I do not know whether the country realises that there are 16 pages of new buildings being Voted for the purposes of the State. Some of them are very expensive. It is true that we must have proper buildings to which poor men out of work can go to inquire about employment but I do not think that it is right that those buildings should be put in the main streets. They are very expensive and they do not provide more work by reason of being in the main streets. The men know where they are and if they were put somewhere round the corner they would perform their functions equally well. I know from experience that if they are put in the main streets they injure the trade of a town. If you have a good, well lighted street, equipped with fine shops and put an Employment Exchange there, when the Exchange is shut after dark the effect is as if a tooth had been knocked out of a man's mouth. There is a blank in the line of lighted shops and the effect is to reduce the ability of shopkeepers to sell their goods.
I feel I ought to have gone through all the items and asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what he has been doing, but it would be wrong to do that at this time of night, but I do make this protest so that he may tell his officials to keep the Exchanges away from the shopping centres. They do more harm than good if they destroy the beauty of a shopping centre. Then I would like to know how it comes that we find on page 27 a sum of £2,160 for "Queen Anne's Chambers, central heating" and on page 55 the sum of £3,080 for the same purpose. Why are there two items for the same building? I will not draw attention to anything else but I do insist that there should not be revotes: it is bad
finance and bad book-keeping and gets us into a muddle over the expenditure of money. I shall not oppose the Vote, but I hope we shall not have more of these revotes.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I hope the First Commissioner of Works will be able to give a satisfactory explanation in regard to the delay which has occurred in the provision of proper accommodation at the Employment Exchanges. What astonishes me is that in all quarters of the House there are not complaints not only about the sites but also that the Department has invariably ignored local opinion in choosing the site and has decided upon unsuitable sites. Exactly the same thing has happened at Bristol where against the judgment of those who have studied the question and found a suitable site for a new Employment Exchange the Department has insisted upon a site which the local people do not think is suitable. Why should the Department insist upon having their own way and choosing a particular site, because after all, this is a matter in which the judgment of the inhabitants of Bristol should prevail. In face of the deputations to the Minister of Labour and visits made to Bristol and the general feeling expressed in the Press on this matter, I hope that, in choosing sites for Employment Exchanges the right hon. Gentleman will not only pay attention to the lighting and the lavatory accommodation, but also take into account the views of the local authorities as to where the Exchanges ought to be erected.

Mr. LANSBURY: The discussion upon Employment Exchanges has very seldom in the past been taken on this Vote. It has generally been considered on the Vote for the Ministry of Labour, or on an ordinary Supply day. As a rule, the particular Votes we are now discussing are never criticised, and that is the reason why they have been put down for this evening. As regards Oxford, we have chosen a new site in George Street, because the present premises are quite inadequate, and that is scheme which has the approval of the City Council. the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) and other hon. Members have asked for the reasons for the delay in erecting new Exchanges on their constituencies. The delay is entirely due to the fact that it is a very difficult
task for a Government Department or a municipal authority to find suitable sites which have the approval of all the parties concerned.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) about re-votes, the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that there is nothing new about these re-votes. The reason there are so many re-votes in the Employment Exchange figures is solely due to the fact that there has been a holding up of building, because the Government had not come to a decision as to its policy in regard to Employment Exchanges. It is only within the last couple of years that the decision has been arrived at that the Employment Exchanges and services are to form a permanent part of the administration, and the Government have had a tremendous leeway to make up.

Sir G. PENNY: Does the Government Department consult the local residents to find out which is the most desirable place to erect a new Employment Exchange? The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that these particular Votes are never discussed. May I point out that in 1924 we discussed every one of these Votes. I want the First Commissioner of Works to bear in mind what the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) said with regard to the Bristol Employment Exchange, because that shows that the Department do not always consult local opinion as to the site.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have no intention of being discourteous to the hon. Member, but I think it is too bad of him to interrupt me by making another speech, and, at this time of the night, putting further questions to me. It was at the time when a Labour Government was in office that these matters were last discussed. We have been so anxious to get these Votes that we have allowed every available opportunity for discussing them. Several hon. Members have asked if the Department send representatives down to a district and drop down a new Exchange without consulting the people in the various localities concerned. The local committee is always consulted, but, whenever there is a conflict of opinion as to the site, somebody has to decide, and it is for the House of Commons now
to decide these matters. The new Employment Exchange for Bristol is still under discussion, and it is a very expensive business. I do not know when the site was acquired, but it was done with the best of motives and probably because there was no alternative. It may be that there is an alternative now, and we are discussing with the proper authorities whether it is possible to change the site of the new Exchange. The negotiations will take time and may cause delay, which and I am certain that nobody in Bristol wishes. We do not know where we are going to get another suitable site or whether we shall be mulcted in heavy costs by changing our plans.
Then there is the whole question of the legal arrangements. There is one district in Scotland where for years we have been trying to get a site which one man is holding us up and there is no other site available. You cannot blame the Office of Works for that. A question has been asked about an Exchange at Dagenham. There is no provision for an Exchange at Dagenham, simply because we have not found a site. If we are able to find a site, we can draw on part of this money for it. The money is not merely for furniture and that kind of thing. I am certainly an advocate of smokeless fuel, and, so far as we are able to secure it without too much cost to the Exchequer, we are carrying out that policy. The same applies to central heating. The Office of Works is doing its best to reduce the smoke nuisance. The cost of the site at Walsall was £1,290. I cannot yet tell the date on which the buildings will be completed. I think that is all I need say with regard to Employment Exchanges.
Queen Anne's Chambers are occupied by two different Departments, and therefore the amount is split up. I want to convince hon. Members from Scotland generally that I am as agreed as they are that the site at Edinburgh should be properly dealt with, and so is the Office of Works. We have sent a model forward to the Scottish Fine Arts Commission, which is now considering it. It will then go to the Edinburgh Corporation, as per agreement, and I can assure the Committee that before any final decision is come to the model and the drawings will be available to this House. I hope hon. Members will accept that as evidence of
my good faith in the matter. The £600 that has been spent is in connection with the demolition of the gaol, and the other money provided this year is to start on the foundations. The Committee may rest assured that the Government have no intention of "jumping" any buildings on to the people of Edinburgh, without the House of Commons and everybody else having the fullest opportunity of discussing them.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's reply in connection with the Employment Exchanges at Bristol is quite adequate and fair.

Mr. LANSBURY: I did not put it on the last Government or anybody.

Mr. CULVERWELL: The right hon. Gentleman assures us that the matter is under consideration. I would like to tell the Committee that this matter has been under consideration for nearly three years.

Mr. LANSBURY: I was not there then.

Mr. CULVERWELL: The site has been recommended to the local authority, and yet they still persist in their red tape and unnecessary delay.

Mr. LANSBURY: No, that is not so.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I am not saying that that is due to any Government, Socialist or otherwise. I do think that it is time that some decision was arrived at that will be satisfactory to the municipality.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I would like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is really necessary to have these Employment Exchanges in main streets. Could they not be put in back streets? My experience is that they are generally in main streets on very expensive sites where it is absolutely unnecessary that they should be placed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £853,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Sundry Public
Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC BUILDINGS OVERSEAS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £158,480, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings Overseas.

Lieut.- Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to ask one question about the Embassy in Moscow. Can the First Commissioner of Works say whether this is a new building and whether the site belongs to the Government, or whether it is a site that is leased 3y the Government of the Union of Soviet Republics, and, if so, what is the position?1 As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Embassies are considered national property of the Government occupying them. Is this Embassy in Moscow British national property, which is therefore sacrosanct to the British Government? If so, why has there been no provision made in the Vote for the purchase of the site? Has it already been purchased? There is a sum of £1,000? for furniture. Does that sum include plate? Why has it been necessary to provide that sum of £1,000? What has become of the furniture that was in the last Embassy. Has it been necessary to renew it and bring it up to date? Has not some been provided by the sale of the old furniture? Is there any provision for linen? If so, why has it been necessary to provide linen? Can the First Commissioner of Works say whether the Tokio building has been built with a view to providing against earthquakes, or has it now been destroyed like the original buildings were? The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that it is possible to have buildings now that are more or less safe against earthquakes.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think the buildings in Tokio will be all right for any ordinary earthquake, but I cannot say anything with regard to an extraordinary earthquake. With regard to Moscow, some embassies are rented from certain people on lease, but they are still looked on as the property of the country concerned in using them. As to the plate and linen, we will not purchase any that is not absolutely needed.

Sir G. PENNY: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the foundation of his reasons for being so sure that the buildings at Tokio are suitable for withstanding ordinary earthquakes.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. I have told him that I was going to do so. The Acts mentioned that for the journey certain passports have to be applied for in the case of these children. Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about the limits of country and time which they are to take?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the passports issued under the Act of 1913 and under this Bill when it becomes an Act are valid only for the period of licence for the countries named therein. I might also add that if an extension is required application must be made to the consul of the country where the person resides.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the Rouse without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes before One o'Clock.